Jump to content

Logging Requirements


Followers 5

Recommended Posts

If you ever get your way and Groundspeak decides to ban ALR caches, I will archive my cache -- it's a hide that will otherwise become nothing more than a plain, uninteresting, lame micro.
If not, then tell me ... why would you have Groundspeak force my otherwise fun and entertaining cache to revert to such a lame status?

Having a control-freak owner does not transform a lame micro into a fun, entertaining cache, except maybe for said owner. Certainly it doesn't for the finders.

 

And allowing people to log finds on caches they have found is not equivalent to a ban of any sort. Conflating the two is sophistry. Not that you'd know.

 

Look, folks, this seems pretty simple to me. A cache owner who would delete logs that don't comply with his hoops is a jerk. And a cache finder who wouldn't comply with a simple request about the log without some good reason is a boor.

 

Allowing people to log finds on caches they have found seems like simple common sense, but there is no point in enshrining it into policy. Jerks will always find ways to be jerks, and boors will always find ways to be boors.

Edited by fizzymagic
Link to comment
What I don't understand is why some folks can't take that as it is -- if they don't like the cache, treat it as if it never existed! Ignore it!

I think the point is that no cache exists in isolation. If you put out a cache with really strange logging requirements, and I may choose to ignore that one, *but* that cache may spawn either directly or indirectly a number of caches that are bad for the sport. With those kinds of caches I personally feel the need to say something about them (I've heard too many stories of 'we had no micros here, until bozo the clown moved in. Now that's all anyone hides). Some caches set a bad precedent.

Then who's the bad guy -- the one who placed an ALR cache, or the 99 who were so lacking in original ideas that they all copied him? If the new caches are really that bad then they won't get much traffic, right?

 

The problem is, some people feel an obligation to follow the 'rules' put down by the cache owner, even if they go against their better judgement. It goes back to that psychology experiment (maybe someone can come up with the name), where if a guy in a lab coat tells you to do something, it can and often does overide your own judgement.

 

Besides, whatever happened to "immitation is the sincerest form of flattery." If someone copies your idea, they must have like something about it!

 

yeah, like its a cheap way to up your hide count woo hoo.

 

If 500 caches appear next week, all within 10 miles of my house, but the thought of finding those particular caches doesn't appeal to me, then -- I just won't hunt them. Doesn't bother me. I'm not about to start trying to dictate how others should play the game.

 

Unlike others, I'm not at all troubled by the mere existence of geocaches I don't happen to like.

 

What if 501 caches appear in the next week, all within 10 miles of your home, 500 are lame micros in trees iin front of crack houses, 1 is an ammo can in a beautiful location.

 

Finding the 1 good cache among the others could take a while.

Link to comment

I'm not making anybody do anything.

 

You are making people do something to "find" the cache.

I made a different decision that applied equally to all my hides and to both "hunting" and "finding" caches. More than one person was worried that they didn't have the "right" picture on my Earthcache. Another cacher signed the log book on one of my caches but could not complete the GPS related requirement, he suspected that it was a GPS related issue. The "guideline" I adopted was based upon a couple of specific situations like this I had encountered with my own ALR caches and then the discussions here in the forums.

 

I have no objection to people placing logging requirements on a cache but do think that making that an Attribute might be the right solution and I did remove every logging requirement on all my caches. I have not encountered a situation where a log I have written has been unacceptable. I try and respect the owner's wishes with the exception of TB hotels that have restrictive covenants on TB movement. I go further than that, I pay tribute to geocachers who place a requirement like the one I found on "Old Faithful" in Yellowstone. In that cache the owner directs you to email first and log your found later, I did that and recieved a prompt welcoming reply to my email. I could view that requirement as a negative but since it was a popular Virtual I choose to view it as "excellent cache maintenance" and I think it demonstrates to cachers everywhere a deep commitment to geocaching and to that specific cache, reading the logs will confirm that this is the case, it is a Virtual though, not a Traditional. I think almost anything goes under the ? category and people can be inventive, it is really the right place to do neat stuff.

 

If the ALR cannot be searched and filtered it should force a listing into the ? category then no one would have any reason to complain. I know from experience that owners who place ALR's will simply be forced to make the decision about what makes a "find" possible on their cache.

Link to comment

 

Look, folks, this seems pretty simple to me. A cache owner who would delete logs that don't comply with his hoops is a jerk. And a cache finder who wouldn't comply with a simple request about the log without some good reason is a boor.

 

Allowing people to log finds on caches they have found seems like simple common sense, but there is no point in enshrining it into policy. Jerks will always find ways to be jerks, and boors will always find ways to be boors.

 

Well said.

Link to comment

 

What am I going to do about an ALR cache that I don't like the ALRs? If I'm there, I'll look for it (hopefully find it), then ignore the logging requirements and log it anyways. I'm of the school of thought that a rule that doesn't make sense has no binding force, and can and should be ignored (to draw attention to the stupidity of the rule). If everyone just obeys the rule, even though its stupid it is going to take a lot longer for it to change.

 

Wow. :laughing: Is that the school of thought that sees a Do Not Enter sign, but enters anyway because "nobody ever comes out that way", and "its the shortest way" to your parking spot- It doesnt make any sense to block access to that route, so you use it anyway. I mean geeze- if everyone were to obey the traffic law, and go around - it'll never be legal for me to cut thru there. That kind of thought?

 

I think its a bit more stupid to ignore the desription, Alerting you to the ALR's - and doing it anyway. Is a smilie really that important? I guess I still cant get past the "if you dont like it, dont hunt it" (This is also assuming you read the cache page) - That eliminates all your problems with the ALR's.

Link to comment
What am I going to do about an ALR cache that I don't like the ALRs? If I'm there, I'll look for it (hopefully find it), then ignore the logging requirements and log it anyways. I'm of the school of thought that a rule that doesn't make sense has no binding force, and can and should be ignored (to draw attention to the stupidity of the rule). If everyone just obeys the rule, even though its stupid it is going to take a lot longer for it to change.

So I guess you speed if you feel like it is safe to do so and drink and drive because you can tell if you've had too much. No one should tell you what to do. You decide what's right and what's wrong.

What if 501 caches appear in the next week, all within 10 miles of your home, 500 are lame micros in trees iin front of crack houses, 1 is an ammo can in a beautiful location.

If there were 500 crack houses within 10 miles of my home, I'd move.

Link to comment

 

What am I going to do about an ALR cache that I don't like the ALRs? If I'm there, I'll look for it (hopefully find it), then ignore the logging requirements and log it anyways. I'm of the school of thought that a rule that doesn't make sense has no binding force, and can and should be ignored (to draw attention to the stupidity of the rule). If everyone just obeys the rule, even though its stupid it is going to take a lot longer for it to change.

 

Wow. :laughing: Is that the school of thought that sees a Do Not Enter sign, but enters anyway because "nobody ever comes out that way", and "its the shortest way" to your parking spot- It doesnt make any sense to block access to that route, so you use it anyway. I mean geeze- if everyone were to obey the traffic law, and go around - it'll never be legal for me to cut thru there. That kind of thought?

 

Its a little thing called using your brain, and it is a great deal more difficult than simply differing to some authority. For example, there is a "Do not Enter" Sign on the road next to my property.

The sign is there so people don't short cut through the dirt road, and disturb the half dozen or so houses down that street. Well given that the only house I'm going to be disturbing is my own (or possibly my neighbour who we're on good terms with), I feel no compulsion to obey that sign (i.e. when my driveway is filled up, or I can't park there for some other reason, rather than block the road, I ignore the Do not enter sign, and park on the dirt road).

This doesn't mean that all "Do not enter" signs can be ignored, or even that that particular Do Not Enter sign can always be ignored, but in that case I can feel no reason not to ignore it.

 

I think its a bit more stupid to ignore the desription, Alerting you to the ALR's - and doing it anyway. Is a smilie really that important? I guess I still cant get past the "if you dont like it, dont hunt it" (This is also assuming you read the cache page) - That eliminates all your problems with the ALR's.

 

Have you read my previous posts on the subject? The whole reason I do the cache anyway is because I don't care about the smiley. I do the cache and log it because it presumably has merits on its own. If I cared about the smiley I'd either satisfy the silly requirement (like hide a micro in a tree) or I'd lie about satisfying the requirement. But I don't care about the smiley, so if the ALR is stupid I won't do it. (again not all ALR are stupid, nor is one particular ALR stupid for all people, but if in my judgement the requirement doesn't make sense, I'll ignore it)

Link to comment
An ALR cache is NOT a mystery cache. The published definitions for each category are quite clear.
The guidelines for a traditional cache say that it has a container and a logbook, and "the coordinates listed on the traditional cache page are the exact location of the cache." But clearly, many people have expectations of traditional caches that go beyond that. I've seen notes posted to ALR caches that say something like "another traditional cache with not-so-traditional requirements" after someone finds it and then realizes there are additional logging requirements.

 

And the guidelines for mystery/puzzle caches say that "the only commonality of this cache type is that the coordinates listed are not of the actual cache location", but I've found puzzle/mystery caches where the container was at the posted coordinates, but you still needed to figure out some sort of puzzle to find/reach/open the container so you could sign the log.

 

So while the current guidelines are clear, I don't think they match the common expectations.

Link to comment
The mantra that keeps coming up is "if you don't like the cache, don't do it." Well, sometimes you don't know if you're going to like the cache until you do it.

Welcome to "life."

 

 

The reason I'm vocal against ALRs are because of the opened-ness of it. I think it an abuse of the system which I believe is more of a reporting device and records keeping system than part of "the game."

Hey ... come to think of it, that's right! Online logs WERE a system originally designed for something much more practical, but are now being used as part of a made-up "game."

 

Which makes me wonder: Does anyone have any idea what the US military's Global Positioning System was originally intended for?

Link to comment
If you ever get your way and Groundspeak decides to ban ALR caches, I will archive my cache -- it's a hide that will otherwise become nothing more than a plain, uninteresting, lame micro.
If not, then tell me ... why would you have Groundspeak force my otherwise fun and entertaining cache to revert to such a lame status?

Having a control-freak owner does not transform a lame micro into a fun, entertaining cache, except maybe for said owner. Certainly it doesn't for the finders.

 

And allowing people to log finds on caches they have found is not equivalent to a ban of any sort. Conflating the two is sophistry. Not that you'd know.

 

Look, folks, this seems pretty simple to me. A cache owner who would delete logs that don't comply with his hoops is a jerk. And a cache finder who wouldn't comply with a simple request about the log without some good reason is a boor.

 

Allowing people to log finds on caches they have found seems like simple common sense, but there is no point in enshrining it into policy. Jerks will always find ways to be jerks, and boors will always find ways to be boors.

Or one could simply avoid the caches one doesn't like.

 

But feel free to whine ...

Link to comment
Besides, whatever happened to "immitation is the sincerest form of flattery." If someone copies your idea, they must have like something about it!

yeah, like its a cheap way to up your hide count woo hoo.

Hide count matters? When did that happen -- did I miss a memo?

 

 

What if 501 caches appear in the next week, all within 10 miles of your home, 500 are lame micros in trees iin front of crack houses, 1 is an ammo can in a beautiful location.

Time to find a new hobby!

Link to comment

So I guess you speed if you feel like it is safe

 

Yep. But I also acknowledge the consequences of getting 'caught' (which is more than I can say for most people). If you speed, and you know you're speeding, and you get caught, you deserve the ticket. There are places in this world where the speed limits don't make logical sense (i.e. I can see for several km in every direction, and its a bright sunny day, and the speed limit is 50km/h, or conversely where the speed limit is 90, but you can't see more than 20m away and the road is covered in ice, and, and, and). The road going in to my house, the speed limit is 80km/h. I believe it is safe to do 100km/h, I feel no guilt over doing 90km/h (at 100km/h the potential fine is too much, so I won't do 100km/h)

 

to do so and drink and drive because you can tell if you've had too much.

 

Drinking and driving is generally a very stupid thing to do, so no I would never drink and drive, you aren't a good judge of your own ability when you are drunk, and should recognize this when you're sober, and enforce that on your self, regardless of if it were illegal or not. (again some people are dangerous at even low levels of alcohol consumption, just because the law says that they are under the limit, doesn't make it a good idea for them to drive)

 

No one should tell you what to do.

 

No one but my Mommy. Others can make suggestions, which I may or may not take.

 

You decide what's right and what's wrong.

 

You better believe it. I refuse to defer to an 'authority' for moral judgement. Just because a thing is asked for by an authority doesn't make it wrong or right.

 

If there were 500 crack houses within 10 miles of my home, I'd move.

 

Good point. :laughing:

Edited by ibycus
Link to comment
I'm not making anybody do anything.

You are making people do something to "find" the cache.

Placing an ALR poetry cache doesn't "make" anybody write poetry any more than placing an underwater cache "makes" anybody get wet. There are two or three of those near me, as a matter of fact -- and amazingly enough, I've never gotten wet. Because I didn't hunt them!!

 

If you don't like the cache, don't hunt the cache. Doesn't that just blow your mind?

Link to comment
Some caches I've signed the log, some I didn't. Some caches I've held in my hand and simply put it back because it wasn't worth proceeding.

 

The mantra that keeps coming up is "if you don't like the cache, don't do it." Well, sometimes you don't know if you're going to like the cache until you do it. Some caches I've deemed so bad that I stop the process in mid-stream. Sometimes that before I sign the log and sometimes it's after.

You know, that very uncertainty you describe -- about what awaits at the cache coords -- is one of the things I enjoy MOST about this game.

 

Come to think of it, CR ... if it's the uncertainty about caching that really bothers you, then you should LOVE caches like my poetry cache! With mine, you know exactly what you're getting into before you even get up from your computer!! No unpleasant surprises! Not like those other, scary caches that are like ...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

... well, like a box of chocolates ...

 

forrest-gump.jpg

Link to comment
If you don't like the cache, don't hunt the cache. Doesn't that just blow your mind?

 

It doesn't blow my mind at all. Imposing that type of condition on "hunters" of geocaches is something I decided not to do. I don't care if you like or hate my caches, feel free to "hunt" them without any conditions imposed by me, to log a "find", find the cache. Contrast this to the position that you find yourself in with both "hunters" and "finders". You're telling everyone who might have coordinates to one of your caches that they have to read the cache page to see if they like the cache and identify any possible logging requirements. In addition you are imposing another separate condition upon all "finders" of certain caches that they did not "find" the cache unless they are willing to meet some other requirement that you have imposed, you do this because you can and you think it is fun.

 

I do not consider this an increase in the level of fun let alone an increase the "fun in hunting and finding geocaches". I know you said they are the same thing but I don't happen to agree with you. Putting on a wig and taking pictures may not be "fun" for everyone but everyone who is choosing to "hunt and find" geocaches has already made the decision that they think that it is "fun". They did not decide that reading every cache page is required, you did, they did not decide that some arbitrary act that is unrelated to "hunting and finding" geocaches is fun, you did.

 

People may have different ideas about what is fun but most geocachers agree that "hunting and finding" geocaches is a fun activity, that is why they are geocaching and not dressing in drag and taking pictures of themselves or writing poetry.

 

I removed all logging requirements on all my caches, even those which were very specifically geocaching related. We have simply reached different conclusions about what others are doing when they go out geocaching, I think they are having fun, you think they are looking for ways to have fun.

Link to comment

I have personally decided not to ever delete a log for non-compliance of extras but I wish TPTB would create a new type of cache that allowed cachers to easily filter them in or out to prevent any of the "I didn't read...." arguments. If all caches of that type REQUIRE you to read the pages then all will know what to expect.

Link to comment

I think there should be an icon for ALR. That said, I think the objections to ALRs are rooted in the numbers ho problem. I mean you can find the cache, trade at the cache, see all the sights, and even sign the physical log. The only thing the owner might be able to do is prevent you from getting a smiley.

 

Besides, I think some of the caches are pretty cool. Me and at least half the respondents to this thread. I daresay its more creative than a Wally world lampost cache.

 

At this point I'd like to try to create a new GC acronym: IJAG (It's Just A Game!!!)

Link to comment
You're telling everyone who might have coordinates to one of your caches that they have to read the cache page to see if they like the cache and identify any possible logging requirements. In addition you are imposing another separate condition upon all "finders" of certain caches that they did not "find" the cache unless they are willing to meet some other requirement that you have imposed, you do this because you can and you think it is fun.

Not all caches are fun to all people. That's a given. If someone reads my cache page and it turns them off, they're free to bypass it and move on down the road.

 

You still haven't explained why that's such a problem for you. Do you think you have to log every cache just because it exists?

 

 

You're telling everyone who might have coordinates to one of your caches that they have to read the cache page ...

 

They did not decide that reading every cache page is required, you did ...

I never said people have to read the cache page. I never said that "reading every cache page is required." That's silly, and it's a significant misrepresentation of my position.

 

 

People may have different ideas about what is fun but most geocachers agree that "hunting and finding" geocaches is a fun activity, that is why they are geocaching and not dressing in drag and taking pictures of themselves or writing poetry.

... and I don't particulary like getting wet, therefore I choose not to do underwater caches. Your point?

Link to comment

How can something possibly be "bad for the hobby" if it's something that "plenty of folks like?" You've said this before, but never offered any supporting reasoning. I could just as easily say that lock-n-lock containers are bad for the hobby by making a similar statement.

 

Burying caches, commercial caches, pocket caches to name just a few. Not saying ALRs are "bad for the hobby", but there are some practices that lots of people like that aren't neccesarily good for the hobby.

 

Personally, I think ALR's should be optional. But if someone wants to make them mandatory, then I am free to ignore the cache and I have no qualms with an owner enforcing their rules.

Link to comment
Which makes me wonder: Does anyone have any idea what the US military's Global Positioning System was originally intended for?

You mean the multi-billion dollar system wasn't placed for our caching pleasure? :laughing:

 

Back on topic:

I've got three caches that could conceivably be considered as ALR's.

1) A Letter From Bjorn, which is based upon the Sesame Street character Swedish Chef. In a rather snarky fit of egotistical indulgence, I asked the finders to utilize an online translator to translate their logs into Swedish Chef lingo. "Bork Bork". So far, everyone has complied but one. It never occurred to me to delete that one log. They found the cache, right? The log stays. Seems like the folks who have had to "jump through my hoops" have enjoyed themselves.

2) Proliferation makes a request of each finder to take one of my custom camo'ed decon kits and hide it, then post a link so I can go find it. It's made clear on the cache page that it is just a request, but some might see it as an ALR.

3) To Hint or Not To Hint is the only one of my 31 hides that actually states on the cache page that you must sign the log to get credit. Why do I consider this to be an ALR? Because there is nothing in the guidelines requiring it. The closest the guidelines gets to this topic is this paragraph:

Step 4 – The Find

 

Huzzah! You found the cache! Congratulations! Now what?

 

Usually you take an item and leave an item, and enter your name and experience you had into the log book. Some people prefer to just enter their name into the log book. It’s an accomplishment enough to locate the cache.

 

Obviously, most folks, (myself included), would consider signing the log as a given requirement, but for the sticklers, since I do require that the log be signed, this could be construed as an ALR. In the case of this particular cache, it's sitting 30' straight up a palm tree. I was trying to avoid folks looking up, seeing it and claiming a find. For all the effort I went through to put that sucker up there, I think I'm entitled to require folks to expend similar effort for that cache's smiley.

Link to comment

You're telling everyone who might have coordinates to one of your caches that they have to read the cache page to see if they like the cache and identify any possible logging requirements. In addition you are imposing another separate condition upon all "finders" of certain caches that they did not "find" the cache unless they are willing to meet some other requirement that you have imposed, you do this because you can and you think it is fun.

 

This has been discussed in a different thread a while back. Some cachers like the added challenge of caching with only the coords loaded.

 

The cache page is there for a reason. If the description isn't needed, then we can just do away with the listing and revamp the site to just spit out coords from a database.

 

However, the listing IS needed. It is where an owner can convey pertinent information about their cache. If you choose to load up a bunch of coords and head out the door, that is your choice. Just don't get upset with the owner when you get home and find out that you need to take a picture, write a poem, etc. Don't get upset with the owner when you get arrested for being in a park after posted hours that were clearly listed on the cache page. Don't whine because you are arrested for tresspassing because you took a shorter direct route to a cache but the owner gave clear instructions on where NOT to go in their listing.

 

In short, the only person to blame for not reading the listing is yourself. YOU, the finder, bear the responsibility for searching without all the provided information.

Edited by GeoBain
Link to comment
Reading the cache page? What a novel idea!

 

I recently took a family vacation and decided to use the "Caches Along a Route" tool. I searched for Traditional caches that had been found in the last seven days using kml's and PQ's. After building a lot of routes and saving them I still had to make routes on the fly as we drove along because we really didn't know where we would be driving every day.

One route segment yielded 500+ recently found Traditional caches.

It isn't possible to read all those pages every day. It is a "novel idea" but not the kind you implied, reading a full novel every day while driving would be a closer approximation of what you are suggesting.

 

From the PQ's I did a straightforward coordinate dump to my GPS before setting out driving each day. We usually got into our hotel room at 9:00PM so the amount of time I had a night was very minimal. You drive along and stop for breaks and sights and end up who knows where. Any cache nearby might become doable at any turn of the road but only if you have the coordinates.

I really do think that the ability to filter out ALR's would be in the best interest of all travellers and hence all geocachers. A Traditional cache should be straightforward and doable with the numbers and nothing else, that is my opinion, no camera needed, no fact needing to be gleaned. Eventually all geocachers become travelling geocachers, it is inevitable. I loaded and unloaded a lot of coordinates for recently found Traditional caches and didn't read many pages at all, we drove by most caches. Traditional caches found in the last seven days was the only restriction I placed on the PQ. I finally decided to look for old caches or caches very close to the road when we felt like stopping or it was very convenient <20 feet. :rolleyes:

 

A lot of the enjoyment of geocaching is in seeing other nice places, less visited attractions and locations that have all the appeal and beauty of well known spots. Our walk near "Tarryall" in Colorado was a very memorable day on our vacation. We invested some time and effort in going down there and the reward was real. A couple of nice caches, a climb and a walk in beautiful spots. A drive through some of the nicest country we saw on our entire trip and many bluebird sightings.

 

As I said I followed the discussions and thought about how it applied to my own caches and I saw the light. I simply removed all ALR's on my caches. I decided any type of logging requirement was something that would increase friction and decrease fun, unlike these forums. :rolleyes: I respect other peoples logging requirements as I am able and would simply not log a cache as Found if I could not meet the requirements, I would post a Note detailing my adventure.

 

Now we need a rating system, because "old cache" is fairly lame even if it does work.

Link to comment
If you choose to load up a bunch of coords and head out the door, that is your choice. Just don't get upset with the owner when you get home and find out that you need to take a picture, write a poem, etc. Don't get upset with the owner when you get arrested for being in a park after posted hours that were clearly listed on the cache page. Don't whine because you are arrested for tresspassing because you took a shorter direct route to a cache but the owner gave clear instructions on where NOT to go in their listing.

 

None of those things have happened yet but I have been stopped by the police while searching for a cache in Moose Jaw. The cache page never mentioned that hazard.

Are you telling me that when you go caching and don't have the cache page in hand you ignore posted hours on parks, why would you do that ?

Why would you expect anyone else to do that ?

You don't need a cache page to tell you that this is stupid do you ?

If you are still taking the shortest direct route to the cache then I advise you to stick to the trail, it often leads directly to the cache, the cache owner might point this out on the cache page but experience is still the best teacher.

If I get home and discover that I need to have a picture to log the Traditional cache that I just signed the logbook on a short while ago I will feel completely free to blame the dunderhead who placed such a restriction on the cache.

You are probably expecting too much from cache listings and if you go driving for any distance you will not be able to read every cache page that you pass by, trust me on this. I would never blame the cache owner for any problems I encounter caching, but then in the case of a Traditional cache I don't expect much from cache owners or cache listings beyond a set of coordinates.

 

coords from a database
That is exactly what the PQ tools and the Route tools do, they spit out coords from a database, you have stated it quite succinctly. Am I correctly grasping your further suggestion that this is bad ? I thought coords from the database were good ?
Link to comment

You know, I find it odd that we're admonished to not do caches we don't like. I guess we're supposed to determine whether we're going to like the cache from information on the cache page. Okay...

 

But, whenever cache ratings are discussed the ability for a person to rate a cache they've not found is considered abhorrent.

 

:rolleyes:

 

Yes, this is OT in general, but I just wanted to address the ever present "read the cache page" mantra.

 

EDIT: fixed typo.

Edited by CoyoteRed
Link to comment

You know, I find it odd that we're admonished to not do caches we don't like. I guess we're supposed to determine whether we're going to like the cache from information on the cache page. Okay...

 

But, whenever cache ratings are discussed the ability for a person to rate a cache they've not found is considered abhorrent.

 

:huh:

 

Yes, this is OP in general, but I just wanted to address the ever present "read the cache page" mantra.

Hmmm.... what to say? Well, I think if you were to read KBIs cache page you'd know, without a doubt, that you'd need to write your online log in some type of verse. And then if you found the cache but refused to log your find that way....

 

... exactly how are the cache ratings, and KBIs ability to rate his caches in any way connected to this??

 

:huh::rolleyes::rolleyes:

 

If you don't like logging in verse, don't do the caches that require it.

If you don't like submitting photographs of yourself standing on your head, don't do the caches that require it.

If you don't like paying $50 to log your finds, don't do the caches that require it.

 

If you don't read the cache page descriptions before you hunt a cache, don't whine about not being able to log the cache if you didn't know about an ALR that you failed to do.

 

You seem a lot smarter than this most the time. Why are you unable to grasp this simple concept?

Edited by Mushtang
Link to comment

I used to cache with an eTrex yellow and nuttin else. Found my first 500 or so with it, just go for a drive and Find Nearest.

 

As a neophyte I got to one cache, The Center Of Things if I recall correctly, and couldn't find the thing. A Civil War cemetary with rock walls, all sorts of nooks and cranny's and places to hide, a big steel sign stating this was the exact center of the state.

 

Man, I searched that place for hours. Literally. I climbed and crawled and reached and poked... nada.

 

Finally gave up, got home, read the web page... it's a virtual on the darn sign I had practically been climbing all over!

 

DOH!

 

My fault, for not reading the cache page, and a lesson that I took to heart... but in no way the owner's fault. No way can I claim a find, as I didn't remember all that was on the sign. I was there. I searched the sign. I read the sign. But I could not answer the required question, so no log.

 

I finally logged it years later when I happened to be passing by that way again.

 

Should the owner have allowed me to log it, having been there, learned the history he wanted me to read, seen the center of the state sign he wanted me to see? I think yes, but it's his cache, his decision.

 

Ed

Link to comment
Man, I searched that place for hours. Literally. I climbed and crawled and reached and poked... nada.

 

Finally gave up, got home, read the web page... it's a virtual on the darn sign I had practically been climbing all over!

 

DOH!

 

Well, the clue should have been that it was a virtual.

 

Additionally, a virtual is required to have some sort of alternative logging requirement as it doesn't have a physical logbook. We're not talking about alternative logging requirement, but additional logging requirement.

Link to comment
Man, I searched that place for hours. Literally. I climbed and crawled and reached and poked... nada.

 

Finally gave up, got home, read the web page... it's a virtual on the darn sign I had practically been climbing all over!

 

DOH!

 

Well, the clue should have been that it was a virtual.

 

Additionally, a virtual is required to have some sort of alternative logging requirement as it doesn't have a physical logbook. We're not talking about alternative logging requirement, but additional logging requirement.

 

Again you read the post and pick the words you'll argue with.

 

A read of the whole post shows that I was a new cacher with only coords to work with, no description, no clue.

 

I don't think I had ever heard the word virtual at that time or it might have occurred to me.

 

And, to my recollection, there was no additional or alternative logging requirement.

 

Ed

Link to comment

Finally gave up, got home, read the web page... it's a virtual on the darn sign I had practically been climbing all over!

 

My fault, for not reading the cache page, and a lesson that I took to heart... but in no way the owner's fault.

Ed

 

Well now, that is a variation on the theme of ALR's. For a virtual cache the ALR is only to prove you were at the site and observed the "wow factor". Any sort of alternative proof should be allowed. Photos, description of what you saw, etc. Occasionally a vitrual owner gets in a snit if you don't have the exact answer but that is a silly position to take if your intent was to get someone to go to a wow site.

 

For OP's example where the ALR is more specific and often not related to the cache location then the way you log the cache supposedly determines whether your Found It will be allowed to stand. I've only run across a few of these and didn't mind participating. I basically don't care for the concept but it hasn't hurt me any any way as yet.

Link to comment

I seriously doubt there are enough of us in the geocaching community who care one way or another about this issue, but if there are an ALR attribute would work, allowing filtering and solving the problem - If you don't like ALR caches you could filter them out.

 

But then we'd need an attribute for green caches, some foks may not be able to see them, and caches on railings, as somebody might lean too far over and fall, and I personally want a 5-minute rule attribute, so if it'll take more than 5 minutes to find I can skip it (that's a joke). I personally hate caces hidden in pine cones and hung in trees, so we need an attribute for those little suckers too.

 

Ed

 

I don't see what's wrong with having more attributes available for filtering. There's over 2500 caches within 50 miles of my house. If there's be some way to further filter which of the 2500 might be most worthy of my gas money, why not make it available? Not that every attribute that anyone can possibly conceive of has to be supported, but maybe some sort of poll or referendum would work. Any attribute that gets at least x number of votes could get added to the web site.

 

An ALR attribute would get my vote.

Edited by Mosaic55
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.

 

Whoops! I posted before replying so now my edit is my reply.

 

When you purchased a car or joined the military service did you sit down and read each and every word on the front and the back of the contracts before signing? When you log onto new web sites and agree to thier terms of usage, do you ALWAYS read those terms? If you do, I think you're doing a great thing but it's something many don't do.

 

My post was making a statement addressing the suggestion that all descriptions should be read before the hunt. Yes, they SHOULD be read but in the normal world, this doesn't work. I'm planning a road trip in a couple of weeks and along with my route and two stayovers I have about 700 caches I'll be loading into my GPS. I may actually visit about 30-40 of those depending on our reststops and the spare time I have. For myself, I'm not going to read (and forget) about 700 caches - most of which I will not visit (but may?). I filter out the puzzles, multi's and the Difficulty and Terrain. This catches MOST of the caches which may require extra gear or other ALR's.

 

I'm an owner's rights type of cacher. I believe the owner has the right to set any rules he wants for his hides as long as they're within the guidelines for cache hides. ALR's are for the most part fun to do. I don't mind doing them at all. I use to have one where I asked cachers to trade only items with an orange color. But I never considered deleting any logs for somebody who didn't do such a trade as long as the logbook was signed. That cache was located where a lot of tourist visited and I'm sure some only had the coords in their GPSr's and didn't know about my ALR.

 

I've never had a bad experience with a ALR which I couldn't complete because the requirements were noted AFTER the find while I was making my log. My logs have NEVER been deleted.

 

I guess I'm just lucky that I haven't encountered any hard core ALR'ers (do 'em or be deleted). In my mind that would go against the fun factor of geocaching.

 

I'm think that a searchable ALR attribute would make this tread a non issue.

 

I think I said enough. Time to go geocaching.......

Edited by Team Dromomania
Link to comment
Why are you unable to grasp this simple concept?

 

I could ask you the same question as you apparently missed my point completely.

Oh, so you were talking about not being able to determine the correct difficulty and terrain ratings based on the cache owner's attempts at self rating?

 

I would then ask you to....

 

Stay on topic.

... as this is a thread about additional logging requirements, not a discussion as to how you're supposed to know if you'll like a cache before looking for it.

 

Thank you.

Link to comment

I believe that additional logging requirements in its own seperate cache category (not a traditional cache) would enhance and not hinder the game. I think a lot of creativity would spring up everywhere! You could have a multi (insert name of new category here) where you could follow a spy theme and do different activities at different locations, or when you go to the local fishing hole to grab a cache the logging requirement might be to catch a fish or (insert your idea here)...

 

If you didn't want to DO something other than sign the log it could easily be filtered out just like any other category of caches you don't like.

 

Also I think that if you want me to write poetry in my log then you better bring me to a spot that would inspire it. If its a "lame micro" what's there to inspire me, the guardrail, how I almost got nailed by the car speeding past me, or the rotting deer carcass 10 feet from the cache..

Link to comment
Why are you unable to grasp this simple concept?
I could ask you the same question as you apparently missed my point completely.

Oh, so you were talking about not being able to determine the correct difficulty and terrain ratings based on the cache owner's attempts at self rating?

 

Another swing and a miss.

 

Stay on topic.

... as this is a thread about additional logging requirements, not a discussion as to how you're supposed to know if you'll like a cache before looking for it.

 

Just addressing your brother's argument, among others, admonishing us to avoid caches we don't like. Such irony.

 

Remember, not all ALRs are detailed on the cache page. Some you don't find out about until you find the cache. In other words, reading the cache page is not the answer.

Link to comment

I seriously doubt that I have read the cache page in advance for twenty percent of my finds.

 

Mostly I go from cache to cache and only look at the cache listing if I don't find it within 5 minutes or so.

 

I load the PQ into my GPS and a laptop mapping program and go caching.

 

I have the cache pages in my laptop and in my Palm if I need to look them up.

 

I don't think I have ever run across a logging requirement I objected to doing.

 

I think this whole thread is about attitude and personality.

 

If you enjoy them as you find them and are having fun playing the game all this angsty-stuff never comes up.

Link to comment
You know, I find it odd that we're admonished to not do caches we don't like. I guess we're supposed to determine whether we're going to like the cache from information on the cache page. Okay...

I agree with the others, CR: I think you missed the point.

 

I think you're confusing two similar-sounding yet completely different concepts here.

 

On the one hand is the question of whether or not one can avoid certain personally undesired cache characteristics by reading the owner's posted description. Don't like multi-caches? Check the category symbol. Don't like micros? Refer to the cache size indicator. Don't like caches in high-muggle-traffic places? Scan the text of the description for words like 'muggle,' 'stealth,' and 'Wal-Mart.' Don't own a flashlight? Scan the text of the description for terms like 'nighttime only.' Don't like ALRs? Read up to see if there are any such requirements mentioned. These are all things that might cause consternation for the cacher who chooses to hunt without first reading the cache page -- consternation that, for the obvious reason, is totally unnecessary.

 

On the other hand is the question of whether or not you're going to like the cache. This is a completely different question. It's something that wasn't being discussed at all in this thread until you brought it up. Can you see that the question of whether or not you're going to like the cache may well have nothing at all to do with anything you might find in its online cache listing?

 

What is it that you find enjoyable about caching?

 

For some it's the challenge of hunting something that is well-hidden. Those folks might not like the super-easy finds.

 

For some it's being led to interesting places. Those folks might not like the Dumpster hide-a-keys.

 

For some it's the swag. Those folks might not like the ammo can which contains nothing but a hotel keycard and an expired Burger Biggie coupon.

 

For some it's the challenge of hunting something that is cleverly disguised. Well, those who have already seen a dozen fake sprinkler heads will roll their eyes at a fake sprinkler head, but -- I know I was plenty thrilled when I found my first one. At the time I thought it was the coolest thing in the world.

 

A cache which deeply entertained your buddy who recommended it might leave you with nothing but mild dread. A cache that prompted a yawn from the last ten finders might well give you the most amazing dadgum time you've ever had with your pants on. I've had dozens of supremely memorable caching experiences, both good and bad, that I could have never predicted even with an extremely thorough and careful reading of the associated cache page.

 

So ...

 

Can you avoid the evil, dreaded ALR cache by reading the owner's description? Most likely yes.

 

Can you be guaranteed to know that you'll LIKE a cache by reading the owner's description? Well, being that we're each unique ... I think you can figure out the answer to that one by yourself, can't you?

Link to comment
My fault, for not reading the cache page, and a lesson that I took to heart... but in no way the owner's fault.

Apparently your real mistake was that you didn't make the cache part of a 700-cache PQ download. That way, you'd have been completely blameless -- legally and morally immune from anything for which a non-PQ-downloader would normally be held accountable:

 

My post was making a statement addressing the suggestion that all descriptions should be read before the hunt. Yes, they SHOULD be read but in the normal world, this doesn't work. I'm planning a road trip in a couple of weeks and along with my route and two stayovers I have about 700 caches I'll be loading into my GPS. I may actually visit about 30-40 of those depending on our reststops and the spare time I have. For myself, I'm not going to read (and forget) about 700 caches - most of which I will not visit (but may?).
Link to comment
Just addressing your brother's argument, among others, admonishing us to avoid caches we don't like. Such irony.

As I previously explained, CR, I was admonishing you to read the cache page for clues to the presence of elements you might not like. Assuming you've done so, and assuming you found nothing on the cache page that turned you off, then ... whether or not you'll like the cache in general is something that only you can determine for yourself -- AFTER you search and find (or DNF) the cache.

 

See the difference yet? Or is this yet another intentional strawman?

Link to comment
If you enjoy them as you find them and are having fun playing the game all this angsty-stuff never comes up.

Never comes up ... until the day that someone in the forums launches a personal crusade to have one of your most popular caches – and all others like it – totally banned from the website just because the mere existence of said cache hurts his feelings for some reason, threatening his golden vision of how everyone else should properly play the game his way.

 

 

I'm sorry ... was that out loud? <_<

Link to comment
See the difference yet?

All I see is you back pedaling. Furiously.

 

Your words...

If you don't like the cache, don't hunt the cache.
Can you avoid the evil, dreaded ALR cache by reading the owner's description? Most likely yes.
I see you're hedging your position now. Even if I scoured the page of every single cache I hunted for an ALR there's those that you don't know about until you read it in the cache. So the actual answer to your self-answered query is no, you can't avoid them all.

 

So, now, you want to tell us how you would handle this situation where someone has actually found the cache but doesn't want to jump through a hoop to simply claim his find? Kind of blows your "if you don't like the cache, don't hunt the cache" theory right out of the water.

Link to comment
When you purchased a car or joined the military service did you sit down and read each and every word on the front and the back of the contracts before signing? When you log onto new web sites and agree to their terms of usage, do you ALWAYS read those terms? If you do, I think you're doing a great thing but it's something many don't do.

Are you serious?

 

Tell me, do you ever really expect to successfully use that as an excuse for not knowing something that was in some contract bearing your signature?

 

"But your Honor, nobody ever really reads those things, do they?"

 

 

My post was making a statement addressing the suggestion that all descriptions should be read before the hunt.

And the statement you made goes something like: "How can I possibly be held responsible for knowing something just because it was clearly explained to me in black and white?"

 

 

 

"Please note: To use the services of geocaching.com, you must agree to the terms and conditions in our disclaimer."

 

Sound familiar? It's on every cache page.

 

Ever read the disclaimer? In large bold letters it says:

 

Cache seekers assume all risks involved in seeking a cache.

 

I never said you HAVE to read the description before hunting a cache. I merely pointed out a truth that (I used to think) was obvious: If you choose NOT read the owner's description, and if that choice results in problems, then you have nobody to blame but yourself.

Link to comment

Always nice to see CR and KBI fighting out the "does a lame cache becomes wonderful by extra hoops" argument.

 

Here's my solution:

 

Log a cache as found if I find it.

Skip hoops that seem onerous.

If the owner deletes my log, log a find on one of my caches (so the Groundspeak find count reflects the number of caches found.)

And since GSAK retains my (deleted) find log, my offline database correctly reflects the caches I've found.

 

Thankfully hoop-jumping requirements are rare in my area.

Link to comment

Some caches, like The Homeless Bathtub I mentioned earlier, indeed do not mention ALRs except in the logbook - the cache contains the ALR instructions. Surprise!

 

The question of this thread, if I can remember that far back, was whether the finder had to comply with the ALR or would a signature suffice.

 

I've never seen an owner delete a log for not doing the ALR, of course I have only found three or four, (one reason why this thread is so funny... it isn't as if ALR caches were more than perhaps 1/10,000th of all caches) but there IS a new cache in my area I haven't done yet that alludes to an ALR and states that all logs without it will be deleted.

 

After reading this debate I still come down to - A signature is proof of a find, an ALR is an entertainment but not a requirement.

 

Ed

Link to comment

After reading this debate I still come down to - A signature is proof of a find, an ALR is an entertainment but not a requirement.

 

I fully agree.

 

And in fairness to ALR cache owners, in the very few cases where I didn't find out that extra activity was required and could not complete the tasks I have never had a find log deleted. Usually I will log the find and then send an email to the cache owner.

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