Jump to content

Logging Requirements


Followers 5

Recommended Posts

In our area we have some caches that ask you to log your finds in a specific manner. One asks that you log in Haiku form and another asking you to tell a tall tale. The owners of these caches are fun easygoing cachers, but for the sake of discussion lets say after I used my GPS, found the traditional cache, signed the log and replaced the cache EXACTLY where it was found would the owners be in the "right" to delete my log and declare that I did not find the cache if I did not follow the logging requirement?

Edited by Harriet the Spy
Link to comment

IMHO ?? No you found the cache you signed the log book, you should be able to claim the find online.

 

As for the logging requirements, I think they are silly but they aren't against the guidelines. When possible I comply with them. If I can't I still log the find and hope that the owner doesn't delete my log.

Link to comment

I think that's a pretty pathetic action myself. In my understanding it's not a rule that you have to follow the instructions verbatim. Yes, it's fun and it enhances the game....for some people. Technically the owner of the cache has rights in that regard, but imo it's poor form and detrimental to the overall spirit and original intent of the game.

 

Imo, a "traditional cache" by definition is one without those types of requirements. If someone uses the traditional, conventional means to find your cache then you shouldn't be deleting the find when the cache is labeled as such. :(

Edited by egami
Link to comment

The owners of these caches are fun easygoing cachers, but for the sake of discussion lets say after I used my GPS, found the traditional cache, signed the log and replaced the cache EXACTLY where it was found would the owners be in the "right" to delete my log and declare that I did not find the cache if I did not follow the logging requirement?

Yes, the owner is one that's supposed be to deciding if a find is valid or not. Even if the requirements are really bizarre you should either follow them or understand if they delete your find for not following their rules. There is always debate about if a requirement is a good one, or if others think it was fair to delete for this reason or that reason, but in the end theres not any recourse against a cache owner if they delete your find.

Link to comment

In our area we have some caches that ask you to log your finds in a specific manner. One asks that you log in Haiku form and another asking you to tell a tall tale. The owners of these caches are fun easygoing cachers, but for the sake of discussion lets say after I used my GPS, found the traditional cache, signed the log and replaced the cache EXACTLY where it was found would the owners be in the "right" to delete my log and declare that I did not find the cache if I did not follow the logging requirement?

For the sake of argument, the owner (unfortunately) has the right to delete your log. Of course, he'll have to say that explicitly on the listing to let you know first.

 

I had to log a cache with a limerick once. My log was not deleted because I at least tried. :D On another cache, haiku was requested. I posted a lame one in Japanese. :D:(

 

To reduce angst, I think the owners should show some flexibility and make the requirements easy. Asking for a poem on the online log is a reasonable requirement, since you can do this AFTER you have left the cache site. On the other hand, owners should avoid requiring this in the cache's physical log book. It should be optional, since most people will have fun complying to the request anyway.

Link to comment

Yes, the cache owner can delete the logs if you don't meet the requirements and is within his rights to do so.

 

I don't care for caches that have requirements other than that I find the cache and sign the log, so if I see requirements that I don't think I feel like doing, then I do what I do with any other cache that doesn't appeal to me: I skip it and go on to another one. If the requirements are such that a lot of people don't want to do them, and the cache doesn't get a lot of "finds"...then maybe the cache owner will get the idea and drop the silly requirements.

Link to comment
...would the owners be in the "right" to delete my log and declare that I did not find...

 

Do they have the "right" to delete the log? That's very much debatable, but they certainly have the ability to delete a log for whatever reason they choose.

 

Personally, if and when ever I come across a cache like that I treat it as any other cache. If the owner deletes the log, it's no skin off my nose as I can simply put it on my ignore list. I know I've found it. Those who come after me know I've found it. That's all that needs doing.

 

That said, I've been known to comply with requests. If I don't mind, I'll do it. If I don't, I won't.

Link to comment
...would the owners be in the "right" to delete my log and declare that I did not find...

Do they have the "right" to delete the log? That's very much debatable, but they certainly have the ability to delete a log for whatever reason they choose.

It IS a right. The cache belongs to the owner -- hence the term "owner." Geocaching.com is merely a listing service. A cache's very existence is only at the pleasure of the owner. As long as the cache is submitted and managed within the published guidelines, it's the owner who decides what hurdles, puzzles, challenges or requirements one must go through in order to log an online "find."

 

Of course, the other side of that coin is the fact that every other cacher, then, has the right to chose whether to (1) do the cache or (2) avoid it. If the cache experiences sufficiently low traffic volume and/or high complaint volume, then it's still up to the owner, and only the owner, to decide whether to change anything about the cache. Whether you believe it's a "right" for an owner to delete your online log, however, is irrelevant -- it's his cache.

 

Many caches are lame. Many caches are annoying. Ownership of a lame or annoying cache, however, is NOT a crime. Good thing, too, because determination of what constitutes "lame" or "annoying" is very subjective.

 

Fortunately, each of us can simply avoid the caches we don't like.

 

 

Personally, if and when ever I come across a cache like that I treat it as any other cache. If the owner deletes the log, it's no skin off my nose as I can simply put it on my ignore list. I know I've found it. Those who come after me know I've found it. That's all that needs doing.

 

That said, I've been known to comply with requests. If I don't mind, I'll do it. If I don't, I won't.

Very reasonable.

 

So you’re no longer demanding the elimination of such caches, then? I'm happy to see you've changed your position* on the subject, CR. :(

 

 

 

 

*

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

Link to comment

Whenever I come across a cache that has specific logging requirements, I think to myself whether or not I want to comply with them. If I feel that I don't, I'll just skip that cache. There are thousands more instead. But if it looks like an interesting cache or might make a nice hike (still not wanting to adhere to their logging requirements), nothing's stopping me from finding the cache, signing the log and logging it online. If the owner deletes it, fine - I didn't abide by their requirements. Doesn't mean I didn't have a nice hike.

Link to comment

It seems like the owner is just trying to have a little fun, and make the cache page a bit more 'unique'.

 

Why spoil the cache owner's fun. Personally I'd try my best to comply with logging requirements like that. I might come up with a pathetic haiku, or 'fish story', it doesn't really hurt me to try.

 

If I come across a cache with logging requirements I don't agree with (like a poorly thought out breeder cache or something like that), well I'll log the cache, and e-mail the owner as to why I'm not complying with the 'rule'.

Link to comment
...would the owners be in the "right" to delete my log and declare that I did not find...

 

Do they have the "right" to delete the log? That's very much debatable, but they certainly have the ability to delete a log for whatever reason they choose.

 

IMHO logging requirements should be suggestions and not mandates. Yes the owner does have the ability to delete my log but should they?

 

It seems that additional logging requirements are a variation of a virtual cache. You have to do something in order to log the cache. A Virtual cache you need to find a piece of information, take a picture etc. in order to log. A true traditional cache is a conatiner with a log book that you can simply find using your GPS, sign the logbook and then log online on GC.com.

Link to comment

In our area we have some caches that ask you to log your finds in a specific manner. One asks that you log in Haiku form and another asking you to tell a tall tale. The owners of these caches are fun easygoing cachers, but for the sake of discussion lets say after I used my GPS, found the traditional cache, signed the log and replaced the cache EXACTLY where it was found would the owners be in the "right" to delete my log and declare that I did not find the cache if I did not follow the logging requirement?

NO!

Link to comment

Well, they can't declare you didn't make the find, since you found the physical cache and signed the log.

 

They can deny you the little "smiley" by not playing by their rules. That's within their right.

 

I've seen (and done) a cache where I had to write the log in a limerick for it to count, and I've done a cache where you "had" to make a trade. There's a cache I haven't got to yet, where you must be a woman, or dressed as one (a wig and dress are provided in the cache container). All of these cache owners stated very specifically on their listing that if I did not do these things, my log would be deleted.

 

All within reason, of course. Cache owners impose these requirements to make their caches unique in some fun way. If a cache owner insisted I pay him five bucks to make the log, well, obviously I'm not going to do that. I suppose he's free to make that a "requirement" (notwithstanding the violation of the Geocaching terms of agreement, but for the sake of this argument...), and I would be just as free to choose not to log his cache.

 

Cache owners also frequently say "Logs with spoiler pictures will be deleted" -- and that's perfectly acceptable.

 

As others have said, if I want to do what they require, I'll do it. If I don't, then I won't. Simple as that.

Link to comment

IMHO logging requirements should be suggestions and not mandates. Yes the owner does have the ability to delete my log but should they?

 

It seems that additional logging requirements are a variation of a virtual cache. You have to do something in order to log the cache. A Virtual cache you need to find a piece of information, take a picture etc. in order to log. A true traditional cache is a conatiner with a log book that you can simply find using your GPS, sign the logbook and then log online on GC.com.

 

IMHO caches should be well placed and interesting. That, your humble opinion and $10 will get us frapucchino at the nearest Starbucks micro.

Caches are owned by the owner. The owner makes the decision. Not sure that I understand what your problem is. If you don't like a cache with added requirements, or even suggestions, then why bother hunting them? If the owner says: I'd like it if you posted your picture with the nearby statue, then, by golly, I'll post the picture. Or try to make my log rhyme.

538d9f93-57ec-4b5f-bb22-d28c99e4bd7a.jpg

Dolphin posts requested photo with the Alice in Wonderland Statue in Central Park, NYC.

Now, what was so hard about that? It will be noted that 90% of the loggers did not post a photo, and their logs were not deleted. Cache hider thought it would be fun. Dolphin is willing to humor cache hider. It is a nice cache. Thanks for hiding it.

Link to comment
...would the owners be in the "right" to delete my log and declare that I did not find...

Do they have the "right" to delete the log? That's very much debatable, but they certainly have the ability to delete a log for whatever reason they choose.

IMHO logging requirements should be suggestions and not mandates. Yes the owner does have the ability to delete my log but should they?

Look at it this way: The owner never even had to hide the cache in the first place. The fact that it's there doesn't mean you HAD to look for it.

 

The act of finding such a cache clearly implies that you agreed in advance to comply with any posted logging requirements. Finding the cache and then refusing to comply with such requirements is, at the very least, rude.

 

 

It seems that additional logging requirements are a variation of a virtual cache. You have to do something in order to log the cache. A Virtual cache you need to find a piece of information, take a picture etc. in order to log.

A variation of a virtual maybe, but not an equivalent. There's still a physical cache involved.

 

A better analogy would be to say that a cache with additional logging requirements is a variation of a puzzle cache. Logging requirements and puzzles both represent challenges which are intended to enhance the fun, and which one must satisfy in order to complete the experience. Wouldn’t you agree that the owner of a puzzle cache has the right to delete your find if he can prove that you never solved the puzzle, and therefore cheated? Sure, he doesn’t HAVE to be so strict, but that’s up to each owner.

 

 

A true traditional cache is a conatiner with a log book that you can simply find using your GPS, sign the logbook and then log online on GC.com.

If you feel that's the only way a Traditional cache should be done, then that's how you should hide them -- but please don't presume to tell the rest of us how we should play the game.

 

It's very simple. If you don't like the cache, don't do the cache. What's wrong with simply avoiding the caches that have post-find requirements?

Edited by KBI
Link to comment
Personally, if and when ever I come across a cache like that I treat it as any other cache. If the owner deletes the log, it's no skin off my nose as I can simply put it on my ignore list. I know I've found it. Those who come after me know I've found it. That's all that needs doing.

 

That said, I've been known to comply with requests. If I don't mind, I'll do it. If I don't, I won't.

Very reasonable.

 

So you’re no longer demanding the elimination of such caches, then? I'm happy to see you've changed your position* on the subject, CR. :(

*

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

 

I think CR's position is that in his opinion the sport would be better if cache owners were not allowed to delete logs because you didn't follow extra logging requirments, but until that time he will either comply with the request or not complain if the owner deletes his log.

 

Puritans believe that the online find count is a count of caches that you found. If you are not a puritan, you can accept that you may have found the cache but don't log it that way online unless you do the extra request of the owner. Similarly, you might have not found a cache, but an owner will allow you to log a find online.

Link to comment
I think CR's position is that ...

With all due respect to you (and out of respect for CR) let's not speculate about CR's position. What is your position ?

 

You'll note that I was merely asking CR to clarify whether he has changed his position. His post suggests that he has.

 

 

... in his opinion the sport would be better if cache owners were not allowed to delete logs because you didn't follow extra logging requirments ...

And I think the sport would be better if busybodies who didn't happen to like the way other participants managed their caches would stop calling for wholesale rule changes and simply avoid the caches they don't like.

Link to comment

Just a clarification of why my opinion is the way it is. (In case you don't feel like scrolling up, I feel that if extra logging requirements are reasonable I'll comply with them, if they are stupid I won't, and I'll leave it up to the cache owner to delete my log)

 

I cache for fun. It is a game. If the logging requirements are reasonable to me, I'll do my best to comply (like for example log as a Haiku). That makes things more fun, and the cache unique.

If logging requirements are stupid (like you must hide a cache in a high muggle location in order to log this cache), I'll ignore that rule, and tell the owner why I don't like it. If they choose to delete my find, so be it. Rules like those make the game worse for everyone, and the more people who feel compeled to obey them, the worse the game gets. I'll still look for the cache (if I get around to it and I'm in the area), as that is the fun part for me.

Whether or not the owner chooses to delete my smiley is irrelevant, I'm not in it for the smiley. The cache is still there, and still has the potential for enjoyment regardless of if I get a smiley for it or not.

 

[puts on flame retardant suit]

I would suggest that perhaps if you choose not to hunt the cache for the simple reason of a logging requirement that perhaps you *are* in it for the numbers.

[takes off flame retardant suit]

Link to comment

It seems like the owner is just trying to have a little fun, and make the cache page a bit more 'unique'.

 

Why spoil the cache owner's fun. Personally I'd try my best to comply with logging requirements like that. I might come up with a pathetic haiku, or 'fish story', it doesn't really hurt me to try.

 

If I come across a cache with logging requirements I don't agree with (like a poorly thought out breeder cache or something like that), well I'll log the cache, and e-mail the owner as to why I'm not complying with the 'rule'.

 

Why spoil the cachers fun? If it isn't a traditional cache then what is so difficult about denoting such so people can avoid the pain?

Link to comment

It seems like the owner is just trying to have a little fun, and make the cache page a bit more 'unique'.

 

Why spoil the cache owner's fun. Personally I'd try my best to comply with logging requirements like that. I might come up with a pathetic haiku, or 'fish story', it doesn't really hurt me to try.

 

If I come across a cache with logging requirements I don't agree with (like a poorly thought out breeder cache or something like that), well I'll log the cache, and e-mail the owner as to why I'm not complying with the 'rule'.

 

Why spoil the cachers fun? If it isn't a traditional cache then what is so difficult about denoting such so people can avoid the pain?

 

Huh? Didn't follow that. Maybe I wasn't clear:

 

1. If the logging requirements are reasonable, and I think they add to the 'fun' of the game, I'll do my best to comply (things like Haiku caches and the like fit in this category)

2. If the logging requirements are stupid, and hurt the game for others I'll ignore them, and e-mail the cache owner to let them know why I didn't comply with the logging requirement. (they might not have thought why they are stupid requirements). We recently had an out of towner place a micro in the downtown core here, (next to a government building) with the logging requirement "Must hide another cache in downtown area in next 24 hours or your find will be deleted". If I'd found that one I would have ignored the logging requirement. I disagree with asking people to place caches they might not be able to maintain (I for one am not up to maintaining a cache in downtown Calgary). Also while the cache didn't say "Place a micro in a tree" what kind of cache do you think the average cacher is going to place? A micro in a tree. Nope sorry not going to do that. It hurts the game for everyone else. By logging it and ignoring the logging requirement you encourage other people to maybe *think* before they hide an ill thought out micro (which would be a good reason to 'spoil the cache owner's fun')

Link to comment

Like Ibycus said, whether or not I might follow the request depends on what it is. If it's reasonable, I'll play along, why not? I found what might be called a mini-micro. All it had was a tiny piece of paper too small to sign but with the instructions to write, when you log online, a fantasy story about what you would hide in the cache. That was kind of interesting.

 

Anyway, even if my post gets deleted, what's one less smiley?

Edited by KG1960
Link to comment

Huh? Didn't follow that. Maybe I wasn't clear:

 

1. If the logging requirements are reasonable, and I think they add to the 'fun' of the game, I'll do my best to comply (things like Haiku caches and the like fit in this category)

 

I don't disagree with that point

 

2. If the logging requirements are stupid, and hurt the game for others I'll ignore them, and e-mail the cache owner to let them know why I didn't comply with the logging requirement. (they might not have thought why they are stupid requirements). We recently had an out of towner place a micro in the downtown core here, (next to a government building) with the logging requirement "Must hide another cache in downtown area in next 24 hours or your find will be deleted". If I'd found that one I would have ignored the logging requirement. I disagree with asking people to place caches they might not be able to maintain (I for one am not up to maintaining a cache in downtown Calgary). Also while the cache didn't say "Place a micro in a tree" what kind of cache do you think the average cacher is going to place? A micro in a tree. Nope sorry not going to do that. It hurts the game for everyone else. By logging it and ignoring the logging requirement you encourage other people to maybe *think* before they hide an ill thought out micro (which would be a good reason to 'spoil the cache owner's fun')

 

I am simply saying, regardless of how good or bad the requirements seem, if there are "requirements" at all then by definition it's not a "traditional" cache based on my reading of the history of the game.

 

Is it asking too much for people with these kind of caches to somehow mark them that way to avoid the let down for people that don't want to write haiku, do the limbo or spray paint their name on a bridge (ok, I made the last two up)?

 

In essence, when placing a cache, be thoughtful to the cachers that may not want that kind of experience...just because you think something is creative and fun doesn't mean the cacher will think that. They found your cache and they simply choose not to participate any further...what's the point of raining on their parade?

 

Maybe the site needs to better facilitate some mechanism to support this more efficiently since it seems to be an on-going issue. Again, I am relatively new, ok REAL new, so I am not advocating that my solution is 100% right. I am just think my solution seems to appease both parties if it's handled this way....cachers don't inadvertantly download a cache they don't want to do and cache owners don't attract unwanted cachers (apparently unwanted because they feel it warrants removing entries).

Edited by egami
Link to comment
I am simply saying, regardless of how good or bad the requirements seem, if there are "requirements" at all then by definition it's not a "traditional" cache based on my reading of the history of the game.

If the cache is located at the posted coordinates, and it consists of a container with a log, then yes, it is a Traditional Cache -- regardless of any additional logging requirements.

 

 

Is it asking too much for people with these kind of caches to somehow mark them that way to avoid the let down for people that don't want to write haiku, do the limbo or spray paint their name on a bridge (ok, I made the last two up)?

Assuming the logging requirements are clearly explained in the posted description on the cache page, then is it asking too much for people to actually READ the description?

 

I own a cache with an additional logging requirement. My requirement is very plainly spelled out on my cache page. If a cache hunter chooses to ignore the description and hunts the cache anyway, how is that my fault?

 

 

In essence, when placing a cache, be thoughtful to the cachers that may not want that kind of experience...

Those who don't want that kind of experience shouldn't hunt that kind of cache -- or at least shouldn't bother logging their find online.

 

 

Maybe the site needs to better facilitate some mechanism to support this more efficiently since it seems to be an on-going issue.

The mechanism already exists. It's called a "cache description." If you choose not to read it, then any resulting problems are your own fault.

 

The existence of the on-going issue isn't due to any problem with the website. The existence of the on-going issue is due to people refusing to take responsibility for their own choices.

Link to comment
...would the owners be in the "right" to delete my log and declare that I did not find...

 

Do they have the "right" to delete the log? That's very much debatable, but they certainly have the ability to delete a log for whatever reason they choose.

 

IMHO logging requirements should be suggestions and not mandates. Yes the owner does have the ability to delete my log but should they?

 

It seems that additional logging requirements are a variation of a virtual cache. You have to do something in order to log the cache. A Virtual cache you need to find a piece of information, take a picture etc. in order to log. A true traditional cache is a conatiner with a log book that you can simply find using your GPS, sign the logbook and then log online on GC.com.

 

Sounds like you have a very healthy understanding of the way things work.

 

To answer your query directly, no, they shouldn't delete your log simply because you didn't fulfill some arbitrary additional logging requirement.

Link to comment

If the additional logging requirements are stated on the listing page, then I can decide if I want to search for the cache or not. If I do decide to search for the cache and find it, I will either comply with the additional logging requirements and get a smiley, or I will just post a note and not get a smiley.

 

Luckily for me, the number of caches with silly logging requirements has been very small so far (488 smileys out of about 600 searched for, with only 2 notes instead of smileys).

Link to comment
NO!
NO, the owners would not be "right"

That's it? Just "no?"

 

No arguments? No debate points? No logical reasoning? No explanation at all?

 

Where's the fun in that? :laughing:

Why should I. My Opinion is Simply "NO". :laughing:

Glad to know you've thought this thing through.

Link to comment
IMHO logging requirements should be suggestions and not mandates ...

Sounds like you have a very healthy understanding of the way things work.

Translation: "healthy understanding" = "agrees with CoyoteRed."

 

I see you've returned to the comfort of ignoring all those posters who disagree with you, CR. I’m surprised, considering you made two recent attempts in two other threads (where this issue was off topic) to re-engage me in this very debate. Now that the discussion’s back on, are you really going to hide behind the Ignore List again?

Link to comment

I guess it all boils down to "What are the official GC.com rules pertaining to it?"

 

I don't recall anything. It seems that everything is arbitray. As I see it, this is an open-ended game where people seem to do what they want if it suits themselves. For good or bad, that's the way it is.

 

I side with the Cache Owner. It's THEIR CACHE. They put it out. If you don't like it, then DON'T LOG IT!

 

It's that simple.

 

All this nonsense about "rights".... Jeeze, it's a GAME for Christ's sake...

Link to comment

I followed the discussions on this subject with interest and then I made the following decision, I removed all logging requirements on every cache that I own. I changed them to challenges where possible and where I couldn't modify things in that fashion I changed them to requests and added a "not to worry if you can't comply" message beside the request. Then I emailed finders who had honoured my original requirements and let them know that I had removed all logging requirements on my caches and they were welcome to change their Note to a Found.

I think cachers gain better insights into the nature of geocaching as experience accretes. I used to believe that I would never delete a legitimate log, then a cacher posted two TB tracking codes in a log and ignored my requests to change the log, I finally deleted the log. I received an email within 15 minutes asking why I deleted the log, maybe they really hadn't seen my first two emails but they did receive my response and they did post a new log without codes.

 

My opinion is that logging requirements do nothing to add to the hunt, geocaching is about finding caches and I want to see people have fun hunting my caches. In retrospect I cannot believe that I was stupid enough to place the requirement of a picture on a geocache, essentially barring anyone without a camera from finding my Earthcache, how stupid was that :laughing: :laughing:

 

The only cacher I always agree with is briansnat :laughing: but in the case of logging requirements it was CR that made me see the light. Now that I have removed all the logging requirements on all of my caches I feel better, however if a geocacher posts a TB tracking code on one of my caches I will send an email asking them to change it and if they don't do that I delete the log.

Link to comment
I followed the discussions on this subject with interest and then I made the following decision, I removed all logging requirements on every cache that I own. I changed them to challenges where possible and where I couldn't modify things in that fashion I changed them to requests and added a "not to worry if you can't comply" message beside the request.

As it should be. Your cache, your rules!

 

 

My opinion is that logging requirements do nothing to add to the hunt, geocaching is about finding caches and I want to see people have fun hunting my caches.

Fun is the goal. I hope your changes have the desired effect.

 

In the case of my own 'additional requirement' cache, however, it would seem that folks have been plenty happy with the hide. It's been around for about three years now. No way to know how many have actively avoided it of course, but to date there are over 100 smileys logged, all of which are fun to read. Would my finders have experienced the same enjoyment had the poetry thing been a request instead of a requirement? Hard to say, but I figure changing it to a request-only would be like changing a puzzle cache to a traditional (and revealing the actual coords) while making the puzzle optional -- takes away the whole challenge, no?

 

 

In retrospect I cannot believe that I was stupid enough to place the requirement of a picture on a geocache, essentially barring anyone without a camera from finding my Earthcache, how stupid was that :laughing: :laughing:

Stupid? Maybe, but I prefer to look at it this way: If anyone actually went after your photo-required cache without a camera while expecting to log a smiley, then who was being stupid, the hider or the seeker?

 

I once goofed up and tried to do a photo-required cache without a camera. Failed to read the cache page before heading out. It never occurred to me to blame someone else for my own failure to plan. I simply posted a note, and then vowed to be more thorough in the future when preparing to hunt caches.

Link to comment
I see you've returned to the comfort of ignoring all those posters who disagree with you, CR.

Nope. I just saw no reason to respond.

 

But, to humor you, my position has not changed on the subject. I've only tempered my approach.

Then please humor me a bit further, because I'm really curious now: If your position has NOT changed, does than mean you're still demanding that caches with additional logging requirements be eliminated -- banned -- from the website?

 

 

So you’re no longer demanding the elimination of such caches, then? I'm happy to see you've changed your position* on the subject, CR. :o

 

*

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

Link to comment

First I have to ask this question ,

 

Why would anyone want to hunt a cache that requires something special to log a find , if said person has no intention of complying with said requirement?

 

Secondly , I do not quite understand what is the problem with special requirements .

 

We have done a couple of caches that requires "special " things be done or said in the log and have complied with the requests to the best of our abilities and none have ever been deleted. We figure the cache owner placed these requirements in the name of added fun to the hunt and or log.

 

If there is some special reason you cannot comply with a requirement perhaps before you log your find you could send the owner an e-mail explaining your situation and get there response first .

 

I see nothing wrong with special requirements . I also think it would be up to the cache owner to decide if your log should be deleted or not . Yes a cache owner has that right , it is after all their cache.

 

Star

Link to comment
Is it asking too much for people with these kind of caches to somehow mark them that way to avoid the let down for people that don't want to write haiku, do the limbo or spray paint their name on a bridge (ok, I made the last two up)?

Assuming the logging requirements are clearly explained in the posted description on the cache page, then is it asking too much for people to actually READ the description?

 

I own a cache with an additional logging requirement. My requirement is very plainly spelled out on my cache page. If a cache hunter chooses to ignore the description and hunts the cache anyway, how is that my fault?

 

 

 

I always read the descriptions on the local caches. But when I'm on the road or if I hit a distant city I usually filter that route's or area's caches with GSAK, load them into my GPSr and off I go. I usually skip puzzle caches and depending on the time I have I'll skip the Multi caches. But I always load up the Traditional Caches.

 

In these cases I read the description AFTER the find. Sometimes there are additional requirements (cross a word off the list - which is easy to overlook - and use it in your log) or (email what was on the marker (for a traditional?). If I can comply, I will. When I can't, I still log the find and email the owner why I didn't comply. I've never had a log deleted.

 

If an owner requires additonal requirements on a traditional cache I think it would do geocaching better if the requirements could be completed AFTER the find and during the logging period. Otherwise make it a puzzle so that the cacher can be forewarned.

 

It's not that I "chooses to ignore the description and hunts the cache anyway" but rather I choose to be practical in both time and material on trips.

Link to comment

After reading this thread, I had to check the referenced one to see if I agree with myself to avoid CR's predicament. Of course, then I had to look up phooning (again). :o

 

As it turns out, I don't really agree with the position I presented in the old thread.

 

My old position was rather selfish. ;) It was basically 'I used to jump through all the hoops, but since my accident I can't do much jumping so I don't think I should be made to.' Wow. It's even more selfish when I type it out like that. :)

 

On reflection, I will jump through the hoops I can and log those as finds. If I fail to jump through some hoops and log them as finds, I risk having my log deleted. That sounds fair to me.

 

I think Harry Dolphin has it right on this issue. These hoops are no different than a virt that requires you to take a pic. If the requirement is spelled out, you should have to complete it to claim a find. That being said, I do not think the requirements should be overly restrictive.

Link to comment

Secondly , I do not quite understand what is the problem with special requirements .

 

Let's make sure were talking about the same thing. "Additional Logging Requirements" are those requests that entail the logger to do something that has nothing to do with the verification of a find in order to use the "Found it" log-type or risk having said log deleted.

 

These do not include requirements needed to verify the find like those on virtual caches.

 

If ALRs are acceptable, then would you have a problem with one that demanded you send the owner 50 bucks in order to log it? Remember, this is to log it as a find, not for you to find it which you've already done. What about post the solution to a nearby puzzle cache? What about lying about how wonderful all of the owner's cache are? 500 words with perfect grammer? ...in Mandrid?

 

See, there's no open end to ALRs as some would define it.

 

Also, some owners allow folks to log their find as a note if they didn't follow the ALR. The owner acknowledges the find, but refuses to allow the proper log-type without jumping through additional hoops. It becomes not about you actually finding the cache and about garnering a smilie.

Link to comment
Let's make sure were talking about the same thing. "Additional Logging Requirements" are those requests that entail the logger to do something that has nothing to do with the verification of a find in order to use the "Found it" log-type or risk having said log deleted.

 

These do not include requirements needed to verify the find like those on virtual caches.

 

If ALRs are acceptable, then would you have a problem with one that demanded you send the owner 50 bucks in order to log it? Remember, this is to log it as a find, not for you to find it which you've already done. What about post the solution to a nearby puzzle cache? What about lying about how wonderful all of the owner's cache are? 500 words with perfect grammer? ...in Mandrid?

 

See, there's no open end to ALRs as some would define it.

 

Also, some owners allow folks to log their find as a note if they didn't follow the ALR. The owner acknowledges the find, but refuses to allow the proper log-type without jumping through additional hoops. It becomes not about you actually finding the cache and about garnering a smilie.

I just can't see a clear difference between your examples and a pic requirement. Either way, I can claim the cache as a find, as long as I am willing to satisfy the requirements. If I am not willing, I can simply ignore the cache.

Link to comment

We have a cache here very much like Ladies First -Man, I Feel Like a Woman! I have to say, this was one of the funniest caches I have done and have had the pleasure of reading through the logs. Look at the pics from the first few finds, and you will be able to tell that the cachers in my area are a funny, and good-natured bunch. My boyfriend spent half the day (prior to this find) caching with a dress on under his clothes - and I had no idea. He did it just to make me laugh (I think :o )...

 

As for the topic at hand, you'll see that some people didn't dress-up, and that their logs were not deleted. IMHO, I think that refleects the good-nature of the cacher OWNER, who just wanted people to have a good time. But also in my opinion, I think she had the right to delete the logs, if she wanted to.

Link to comment
It's not that I "chooses to ignore the description and hunts the cache anyway" but rather I choose to be practical in both time and material on trips.

What’s the difference? Logically speaking, both are the same. Practical matters aside, either you chose to hunt a cache without having read the description, or you didn’t.

 

Would I ever hunt a cache without having read the description? Sure! I’ve done it a few times, usually when I wasn’t expecting to be caching that day. The point is that I understood the risk, and took responsibility for my choice to hunt unprepared. I happened to get by in those cases without any problems, but if there HAD been problems due to my not having read the descriptions the trouble would have been MY fault, not the cache owner’s.

 

 

I always read the descriptions on the local caches. But when I'm on the road or if I hit a distant city I usually filter that route's or area's caches with GSAK, load them into my GPSr and off I go. I usually skip puzzle caches and depending on the time I have I'll skip the Multi caches. But I always load up the Traditional Caches.

Paperless caching is a convenience. It does NOT excuse a cacher from the basic responsibilities and etiquette of Geocaching.

 

Besides, there are other ways to access the descriptions. I don’t cache paperless myself, but I understand you can keep the posted descriptions handy with a PDA.

 

Reading the cache description before hunting a cache is important for many reasons other than additional logging requirements. Sometimes it’s critical. There might be other things in there that you really need to know, things the owner needs to tell you, things like issues related to preserving the hide method, not damaging the container, avoiding private property – even your very own safety!

 

Here are a couple of excellent quotes from previous threads on the same subject:

 

From kentuckygirls:

Now as far as my opinion. I have always read the description of the cache before I hunted it and I am a paperless cacher. I don't really understand why people don't. It can cause tons of problems if you don't have the proper info, such as times the cache should be hunted, whether it is ok to enter private property, access from which roads, etc. There is lots of info there that could give you or geocaching a bad rep if it is ignored. I do understand that it is a challenge to go without reading the description, but to me it is not worth the trouble it could cause.

From RichardMoore:

I believe that you should have read the cache page. Not only could it avoid problems while searching for the cache, but I think you owe it to the cache owner. We've all seen cache pages that obviously took quite a bit of effort to research and write. Some give the history of the area. Some will tell you to go a little further and check out a monument or a view when the hider couldn't place the cache there.

The minute that you spend reading the cache page could not only solve problems before they come up, and could make the find more fulfilling, but it's a sign of respect and appreciation for the hider's effort.

It's your choice, but you skip the description at your own risk of peril.

 

 

If an owner requires additional requirements on a traditional cache I think it would do geocaching better if the requirements could be completed AFTER the find and during the logging period.

I’ll agree with you there. I think springing such requirements on the cache seeker as a surprise at the cache site is more likely to be annoying than entertaining. It’s still the cache owner’s right to do so, of course, but were I to stumble across one of those I might post a log (or a note) expressing my annoyance.

 

 

Otherwise make it a puzzle so that the cacher can be forewarned.

Are you suggesting the owner on an ALR (additional logging requirement) cache should submit the cache under the Mystery/Puzzle category? An ALR cache is NOT a mystery cache. The published definitions for each category are quite clear.

 

Assuming the logging requirement is explained in the description, the cacher has been plenty forewarned already.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 5
×
×
  • Create New...