Jump to content

Bogus Requirements


TeamBarstool
Followers 1

Recommended Posts

so noob (and fizzy and CR)...how do you really feel about geocaches with requirements beyond finding and signing... :)

 

threats and name-calling seem a little heavy for a fun, if geeky pastime, don't you think?

 

there are lots of caches I would never hunt...so I don't...skip my stupid rule cache, my feelings won't be hurt...if you do visit my stupid rule cache and don't follow the rule, please feel free to log it as a "note" in order to preserve the "core functionality of gc.com"...you'll still keep track of where you've been...without breaking the rules of my cache...but you won't get a smiley...

 

Edit: Please also feel free to add Stupid Rule Cache to your "Caches that make me Grumpy" public bookmark list...

Jamie - NFA

Edited by NFA
Link to comment

so noob (and fizzy and CR)...how do you really feel about geocaches with requirements beyond finding and signing... :)

 

threats and name-calling seem a little heavy for a fun, if geeky pastime, don't you think?

 

there are lots of caches I would never hunt...so I don't...skip my stupid rule cache, my feelings won't be hurt...if you do visit my stupid rule cache and don't follow the rule, please feel free to log it as a "note" in order to preserve the "core functionality of gc.com"...you'll still keep track of where you've been...without breaking the rules of my cache...but you won't get a smiley...

 

Jamie - NFA

Having a public bookmark list of "caches who delete finds that have signed logbooks" is no more a threat than someone saying they are going to delete a find (even with a signed logbook) because there is some requirement that has nothing to do with the ability to get your hands on the physical cache. Actually, it is more of a threat: Do it my way or else!

 

And as far as functionality, a "note" does not make any reference (such as a red checkmark) on the cache list pages when you are browsing for unfound caches. Nice try, tough. A note does NOT perform the same function.

 

Let me say that if I happen to know what the panty-rule is, and I am capable of doing it, and it doesn't make me do something I do not want to do (for WHATEVER reason), I may well do it. But to make it a requirement is what I object to.

Link to comment
As to the cache in question, I think the owner simply wants to recognise the finders' milestone. Is that so bad?

 

I'm sure there are a few of these types of caches around and i think they are another way to bring more fun into geocaching. I don't know if i've ever run across any of these myself, but i would venture to say that they don't have owners who delete legitimate finds. The Milestone Cache listed above looks like fun and has some fun but easily doable requirements. The 99 cache requirement that the OP brought up automatically exempts a bunch of cachers and is only fun for the very few who have found 99 caches and can get out to find it at that time.

 

To me it should be setup kinda like a TB hotel. These are put out specifically to attract TBs while on their journey but i've never seen one put out with the stipulation that your find log would be deleted if you didnt trade TBs.

Link to comment
To have someone remove the red checkmark because I didn't take a picture of myself wearing panties on my head (or something else that is stupid), is pathetic.

If you hunt a wear-panties-on-your-head cache; one which indicates a logging requirement, clearly stated in the description, dictating visual documentation of yourself wearing panties on your head; then you knowingly choose to log the find without complying with the cache the way the owner designed it -- then who's being pathetic? :)

 

 

I've been there, I found the cache, I signed the log. By deleting it, you are messing up the core of the functionality of gc.com. It is intended to keep track of where I have been. For me. Not for you.

Discussing core functionality and original intent is a very weak argument.

 

Look at it this way: The core of the functionality of the Global Positioning System is to provide a precision navigation system to the United States Military. It is intended to keep track of where soldiers are. For them. Not you.

 

The US government has decided (for now, anyway) to make those signals available to the general public. By using the GPS system to locate hidden containers of trinkets you are messing with the core of the functionality of the system as it was intended.

 

Therefore, if the owner of an ALR (Additional Logging Requirement) cache is wrong to delete your smiley after you thumb your nose at his cache theme, then aren't we are all wrong for using gummint satellites to play this game in the first place?

 

The owner of an ALR cache is merely trying to think outside the box in order to provide you with a variety of entertainment. Those who dislike ALR caches are free to avoid ALR caches, just like those who dislike puzzle caches are free to avoid puzzle caches, and those who dislike watercraft-required caches are free to avoid watercraft-required caches.

 

No need to whine about ALRs. Just avoid them, and move on to something you do like. :)

Link to comment

By the way,,, There is a difference in setting up a cache with requirements where cachers can make the choice whether they want to comply or not.

 

For example:

 

Katydid's cache above allows cachers to decide if they want to meet the requirement or not.

 

This 99 cache requirement doesn't even give you a choice, you either qualify or you don't. It penalizes cachers for something they may not have any control over!

Link to comment
To have someone remove the red checkmark because I didn't take a picture of myself wearing panties on my head (or something else that is stupid), is pathetic.

If you hunt a wear-panties-on-your-head cache; one which indicates a logging requirement, clearly stated in the description, dictating visual documentation of yourself wearing panties on your head; then you knowingly choose to log the find without complying with the cache the way the owner designed it -- then who's being pathetic? :)

 

The cache owner who deletes the log when wearing panties on ones head has nothing to do with finding the cache and signing the logbook.

I've been there, I found the cache, I signed the log. By deleting it, you are messing up the core of the functionality of gc.com. It is intended to keep track of where I have been. For me. Not for you.

Discussing core functionality and original intent is a very weak argument.

 

Look at it this way: The core of the functionality of the Global Positioning System is to provide a precision navigation system to the United States Military. It is intended to keep track of where soldiers are. For them. Not you.

 

The US government has decided (for now, anyway) to make those signals available to the general public. By using the GPS system to locate hidden containers of trinkets you are messing with the core of the functionality of the system as it was intended.

 

Therefore, if the owner of an ALR (Additional Logging Requirement) cache is wrong to delete your smiley after you thumb your nose at his cache theme, then aren't we are all wrong for using gummint satellites to play this game in the first place?

 

The owner of an ALR cache is merely trying to think outside the box in order to provide you with a variety of entertainment. Those who dislike ALR caches are free to avoid ALR caches, just like those who dislike puzzle caches are free to avoid puzzle caches, and those who dislike watercraft-required caches are free to avoid watercraft-required caches.

 

No need to whine about ALRs. Just avoid them, and move on to something you do like. :)

 

Speaking of weak arguments. :D It's okay to delete logs of caches that have been physically found and signed because... the government now lets us use GPS signals? What?

Edited by New England n00b
Link to comment

By the way,,, There is a difference in setting up a cache with requirements where cachers can make the choice whether they want to comply or not.

 

For example:

 

Katydid's cache above allows cachers to decide if they want to meet the requirement or not.

 

This 99 cache requirement doesn't even give you a choice, you either qualify or you don't. It penalizes cachers for something they may not have any control over!

Well sure they have a choice. Find 99 caches or else!

 

 

:)

Link to comment

By the way,,, There is a difference in setting up a cache with requirements where cachers can make the choice whether they want to comply or not.

 

For example:

 

Katydid's cache above allows cachers to decide if they want to meet the requirement or not.

 

This 99 cache requirement doesn't even give you a choice, you either qualify or you don't. It penalizes cachers for something they may not have any control over!

Well sure they have a choice. Find 99 caches or else!

 

 

:)

 

Well, just off the top of my head, it's a cache that someone traveling through the area with less than 99 finds would have to skip. I know this isn't going to be the case too often but yes, there are reasons why someone may not have the choice.

 

The point i'm trying to make is that i think this requirement takes more away from the fun of the cache than it would ever possibly provide. :)

Link to comment

Sounds like we need a new site: www.puritancaching.com. www.puritancaching.com will list all traditional caches that are on www.geocaching.com - but none of those multis, virtuals, or puzzle caches that aren't keeping with the core functionality of puritan geocaching. Puritan geocaching will be set up with code to enforce the following:

  1. No more than one found log for each cacher per cache
  2. No found it log on caches you own
  3. Owners can not delete logs except if they provide proof that the log sheet was not signed

Then the puritans can play their game on their own website. :)

Link to comment

Sounds like we need a new site: www.puritancaching.com. www.puritancaching.com will list all traditional caches that are on www.geocaching.com - but none of those multis, virtuals, or puzzle caches that aren't keeping with the core functionality of puritan geocaching. Puritan geocaching will be set up with code to enforce the following:

  1. No more than one found log for each cacher per cache
  2. No found it log on caches you own
  3. Owners can not delete logs except if they provide proof that the log sheet was not signed

Then the puritans can play their game on their own website. :)

Exactly! Well said! :):) Thanks! :):D

Link to comment
To have someone remove the red checkmark because I didn't take a picture of myself wearing panties on my head (or something else that is stupid), is pathetic.

If you hunt a wear-panties-on-your-head cache; one which indicates a logging requirement, clearly stated in the description, dictating visual documentation of yourself wearing panties on your head; then you knowingly choose to log the find without complying with the cache the way the owner designed it -- then who's being pathetic? :D

 

 

I've been there, I found the cache, I signed the log. By deleting it, you are messing up the core of the functionality of gc.com. It is intended to keep track of where I have been. For me. Not for you.

Discussing core functionality and original intent is a very weak argument.

 

Look at it this way: The core of the functionality of the Global Positioning System is to provide a precision navigation system to the United States Military. It is intended to keep track of where soldiers are. For them. Not you.

 

The US government has decided (for now, anyway) to make those signals available to the general public. By using the GPS system to locate hidden containers of trinkets you are messing with the core of the functionality of the system as it was intended.

 

Therefore, if the owner of an ALR (Additional Logging Requirement) cache is wrong to delete your smiley after you thumb your nose at his cache theme, then aren't we are all wrong for using gummint satellites to play this game in the first place?

 

The owner of an ALR cache is merely trying to think outside the box in order to provide you with a variety of entertainment. Those who dislike ALR caches are free to avoid ALR caches, just like those who dislike puzzle caches are free to avoid puzzle caches, and those who dislike watercraft-required caches are free to avoid watercraft-required caches.

 

No need to whine about ALRs. Just avoid them, and move on to something you do like. :)

I feel that your points were very well stated, and I agree. Thank you! :)

Link to comment

I have a stupid rule cache that requires the use of a code-word in order to log your find...found logs not meeting this requirement will be deleted...because I can...if you don't want to deal with the stupid rule, find another cache...I have hidden about 60 others without such requirements...

 

Jamie - NFA

Much the same here! :) Like many owners of extreme terrain caches, some of our extreme caches do contain a secret code word in the log book which is a prerequisite for claiming an online find. Owners of extreme-terrain caches do this for obvious reasons: to weed out a majority of false find claims on highly-popular extreme caches (for example, two of our exteme caches have been waypointed by over 85 cachers apiece, and one has been waypointed by over 150 cachers), and to reduce the need for the owner to check the logbook regularly in order to verify find claims. For one of my caches, I need to charter a helicopter every time I wish to check the logbook! I have personally found several extreme terrain caches where secret code words and/or other verification measures were demanded, and I complied with the requirements willingly; in fact, it added to the fun! :)

Link to comment

Sounds like we need a new site: www.puritancaching.com. www.puritancaching.com will list all traditional caches that are on www.geocaching.com - but none of those multis, virtuals, or puzzle caches that aren't keeping with the core functionality of puritan geocaching. Puritan geocaching will be set up with code to enforce the following:

  1. No more than one found log for each cacher per cache
  2. No found it log on caches you own
  3. Owners can not delete logs except if they provide proof that the log sheet was not signed

Then the puritans can play their game on their own website. :)

Nice generalization, but no. Multis and puzzle caches are part of the system, and virtuals are part of the system at Waymarking. Special logging requirements are NOT the same thing. Your first two bullet points are useless to me, as I don't care about -your- numbers or where -you- have been. Fluff as much as you want on your numbers, leave me out of it. The third bullet point would exclude valid reasons for deleting a log (profanity and junk of that sort). Your 'jab' at the argument for being able log a find because the logbook is signed misses the mark. I don't expect every cache owner to check the logbook. But to delete a log without even checking because of a non-critical logging requirement is not right. Maybe the puritans should stay, and the panty-logging caches should leave. Virtuals left, why not stupid requirements? That would be consistent, and leave the functionality of geocaching.com they way it needs to be to meet the needs of the users just trying to simply keep track.

 

Since that ain't gonna happen:

 

I'm all for the addition of a second find type (the panty-smiley or whatever you want to use). Let the rest of use the geocaching system the it was designed (by using a plain smiley). Those who want to play by the logging requirement rules get to log a 'special' smiley. Everyone would get to keep the functionality they need/want - regular users get to keep track using the system as it was built, special logging user would get to brag that they got 'X' amount of panty-smilies, and special logging cache owners would get to brag about how many people had panty-smiley fun at their cache. This 'extra smiley' would be enabled by the cache hider at the creation of the cache page, so it isn't default on every cache. With the way everyone is icon crazy, I think it'd be a better system than what is around now - people deleting logs out of spite.

Edited by New England n00b
Link to comment
Blah, blah, blah....

 

By now you've ignored my question a dozen times, but I'll ask it again anyway: CoyoteRed, instead of ranting and raving and demanding restrictions, why can't you just politely bypass the caches you don't like?

It's amazing that you can find the posts about your precious ALR caches yet not read the ones I'm made where I've mentioned that I will certainly politely bypass caches I don't like. I've mentioned that I'll even make that decision well into the hunt up to the point where I've held the cache in my hands. Heck, I'll even sign the log and if I didn't like the cache I'll not log it if I feel there is no need. (Kind of hard to un-find it, huh?)

Makes sense. :D

 

And thanks for finally answering the question.

 

So ... it's now your position that you're willing to bypass caches you don't like? Glad to hear it. This represents a change to your previously stated position on the matter, but I think it's a good change. :)

 

Now that we've established that you're willing to bypass caches you don't like, could you please do me the honor of answering the next six obvious questions?

  1. If you're willing to bypass caches you don't like, then why do you continue to see the need to rudely thumb your nose at those cache's owners?
  2. If you're willing to bypass caches you don't like, then why do you see the need to encourage others to copy your rude behavior?
  3. If you're willing to bypass caches you don't like, then why can't you just leave it at that instead of demanding rule changes to eliminate such hides?
  4. How do you square these ill-mannered behaviors of yours with your posted rule from your own Geo Creed admonishing cachers to Be Considerate Of Others?
  5. As long as nobody’s threatening your rights, why can't you leave others alone to enjoy the game in any benign way they see fit?
  6. Why do you so strongly insist that others play the game your way?

:)

 

 

See, I believe in the democratic process and peer pressure. In this instance, it's the process where the community decides what is right in the absence of a higher authority. For this process to work opinions must be heard. To be heard, the opinion must first be expressed. In geocaching, one way to express an opinion is to find the cache in question and log it.

... and another way is to express your opinion, in these forums or elsewhere, without thumbing your nose at cache owners by pointedly ignoring their requirements, requests and themes.

 

One way is rude, the other polite. Your choice.

 

 

You, apparently, believe in the dictatorial process wherein you not only dictate how folks are to provide you feedback, but also rail against those who would advocate ignoring your artificial controls.

All caching is voluntary. My ALR cache is voluntary. What is dictatorial about placing a cache that everyone is free to avoid? When have I demanded that people find or log my cache?

 

Yes, an ALR is an artificial control. So is a puzzle that you have to solve to reveal the cache coordinates. So is an event cache that requires you to show up in person to claim a find credit. So it’s artificial. So what?

 

I don’t have a problem with anyone who advocates ignoring my cache, CR. What you’re recommending, however, is something completely different.

 

 

Face it, anyone who logs your cache without your requirements is providing feedback, one bit of which is them telling you they don't like your requirement. You seem to not want to know folks don't like that.

It has only happened a couple of times, and in neither case was there a stated political objective. In both cases it was obvious that the finder merely failed to read the description. I have received zero negative feedback. You seem to be one of the very few that has any heartburn at all over the mere existence of a cache you could easily ignore.

 

If positive/negative feedback is your standard, then you can rest happy in the knowledge that, in my case anyway, my ALR cache is a resounding success! Well over 100 finds to date! No complaints! People having FUN with additional logging requirements, CR!

 

Based on your feedback standard, you must be pleased!

 

 

As mentioned many times before, I feel ALRs are an abuse of the system.

As I explained to New England n00b: Using something for other that its original intended purpose in order to create benign, safe, family-friendly entertainment is not wrong. If it were, then every one of us would be wrong for using GPS satellites to hunt any caches.

 

Nobody's trying to “abuse” you, CR. Those ALR's can only bother you if you choose to let them. Ignore them and move on, and we'll all be better off.

 

 

A person can find a cache, but in order to provide feedback the way the site provides they must do some other, often silly and occasionally debasing, activity in order to simply say they had found the cache with the proper log type.

It's all in fun. Those ALRs are intended for your entertainment. You don't have to like every kind of cache, CR. The adjectives you're using to disparage ALR caches could just as easily be applied to any of the many thousands of non-ALR caches. That doesn't make them bad, it doesn't make them wrong, it doesn't mean anyone's trying to annoy you, and it certainly doesn't indicate the need for any new restrictive rules of the type you regularly advocate.

 

And, as I've pointed out before: If you just absolutely HAVE to find that ALR cache, but can't STAND the thought of complying with the online logging requirements, then you can still log it with the "proper log type." All you have to do is log it as a find on one of your own caches. That way, not only is your smiley safe from deletion by the mean and evil cache owner -- but you're also free to fill your log with whatever opinions you like! Rant away!!!

 

 

Many times the cache owner will even provide acknowledgment of the find if you log it improperly with a different log type. I think that is wrong. I will continue to express that opinion and I will advocate others to express their opinion about it, as well, ignoring the requirement.

And I think such rude behavior is wrong, but I can't stop you, so ... party on, Creed Man!

Link to comment
To have someone remove the red checkmark because I didn't take a picture of myself wearing panties on my head (or something else that is stupid), is pathetic.

If you hunt a wear-panties-on-your-head cache; one which indicates a logging requirement, clearly stated in the description, dictating visual documentation of yourself wearing panties on your head; then you knowingly choose to log the find without complying with the cache the way the owner designed it -- then who's being pathetic? :)

 

The cache owner who deletes the log when wearing panties on ones head has nothing to do with finding the cache and signing the logbook.

And who said you HAD to hunt the panty cache in the first place? In your hypothetical example it's you who has chosen to hunt the panty cache, yet actively refused to comply with the requirement. Who's fault is that? Why would you hunt and log such a cache if you knew you weren't going to finish it? Sounds pretty pointless to me.

 

 

I've been there, I found the cache, I signed the log. By deleting it, you are messing up the core of the functionality of gc.com. It is intended to keep track of where I have been. For me. Not for you.

Discussing core functionality and original intent is a very weak argument.

 

Look at it this way: The core of the functionality of the Global Positioning System is to provide a precision navigation system to the United States Military. It is intended to keep track of where soldiers are. For them. Not you.

 

The US government has decided (for now, anyway) to make those signals available to the general public. By using the GPS system to locate hidden containers of trinkets you are messing with the core of the functionality of the system as it was intended.

 

Therefore, if the owner of an ALR (Additional Logging Requirement) cache is wrong to delete your smiley after you thumb your nose at his cache theme, then aren't we are all wrong for using gummint satellites to play this game in the first place?

 

The owner of an ALR cache is merely trying to think outside the box in order to provide you with a variety of entertainment. Those who dislike ALR caches are free to avoid ALR caches, just like those who dislike puzzle caches are free to avoid puzzle caches, and those who dislike watercraft-required caches are free to avoid watercraft-required caches.

 

No need to whine about ALRs. Just avoid them, and move on to something you do like. :D

 

Speaking of weak arguments. :) It's okay to delete logs of caches that have been physically found and signed because... the government now lets us use GPS signals? What?

You completely missed the point.

 

Vinny & Sue Team didn't seem to have any trouble understanding it.

 

Wanna try again?

Link to comment
Blah, blah, blah....

 

By now you've ignored my question a dozen times, but I'll ask it again anyway: CoyoteRed, instead of ranting and raving and demanding restrictions, why can't you just politely bypass the caches you don't like?

It's amazing that you can find the posts about your precious ALR caches yet not read the ones I'm made where I've mentioned that I will certainly politely bypass caches I don't like. I've mentioned that I'll even make that decision well into the hunt up to the point where I've held the cache in my hands. Heck, I'll even sign the log and if I didn't like the cache I'll not log it if I feel there is no need. (Kind of hard to un-find it, huh?)

Makes sense. :)

 

And thanks for finally answering the question.

 

Thanks for finally acknowledging that I answered it.

 

As for the rest of your post, well, to be honest I got tired of reading the same old tripe as you always spew. No, I didn't read the whole thing so if you have anything original in there then I missed it. I'm sure you really told me. :)

Link to comment
Multis and puzzle caches are part of the system, and virtuals are part of the system at Waymarking. Special logging requirements are NOT the same thing.

Neither are event caches. Should they go too?

 

 

I don't expect every cache owner to check the logbook. But to delete a log without even checking because of a non-critical logging requirement is not right. Maybe the puritans should stay, and the panty-logging caches should leave. Virtuals left, why not stupid requirements?

So if I think puzzle caches are stupid, should they be eliminated also?

 

You think ALRs are stupid. Fine. Why not leave it at that? There's no reason to clamp down on other people's fun just to 'clean up the menu' in in order to satisfy your tender tastes.

 

If the mere existence of ALR caches drives you to demand their removal ... be careful what you ask for. Someone else may follow your precedent and succeed in the removal of all micros. Or all one-stars. Or who knows, maybe pumpkin- or badger-themed caches will be the next group scheduled for extermination.

 

You never know what's going to offend somebody -- God forbid anyone should be expected to simply avoid caches they don't like. :)

 

 

... With the way everyone is icon crazy, I think it'd be a better system than what is around now - people deleting logs out of spite.

Now you've gone off topic. Who's been deleting logs out of spite? When did that come up?

Link to comment
Blah, blah, blah....

 

By now you've ignored my question a dozen times, but I'll ask it again anyway: CoyoteRed, instead of ranting and raving and demanding restrictions, why can't you just politely bypass the caches you don't like?

It's amazing that you can find the posts about your precious ALR caches yet not read the ones I'm made where I've mentioned that I will certainly politely bypass caches I don't like. I've mentioned that I'll even make that decision well into the hunt up to the point where I've held the cache in my hands. Heck, I'll even sign the log and if I didn't like the cache I'll not log it if I feel there is no need. (Kind of hard to un-find it, huh?)

Makes sense. :)

 

And thanks for finally answering the question.

 

Thanks for finally acknowledging that I answered it.

 

As for the rest of your post, well, to be honest I got tired of reading the same old tripe as you always spew.

 

No, I didn't read the whole thing so if you have anything original in there then I missed it. I'm sure you really told me. :)

No problem.

 

I asked you more questions. Questions which follow logically from your long-awaited answer to the previous question.

 

Did you really skip them, or are you intentionally ignoring them because answering them might be uncomfortable for you?

 

Are you going to answer them? If so, do we have to wait several months like we did for the last answer?

 

 

And please don't tell my you're reverting to the old "Ignore KBI" thing -- again. Putting your fingers in your ears and singing "LALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALALALALALA" instead of offering rational responses isn't likely to convince anybody of anything.

Link to comment
I will continue to express that opinion and I will advocate others to express their opinion about it, as well, ignoring the requirement.

Will you also continue to suggest caches with ALRs be eliminated?

Have you stopped beating your wife?

Here come the irrelevant tangents. Right on shedule.

 

Anything but argue the issue. Right, CR?

 

Next will follow a few more off-topic distractions, followed by the inevitable personal attacks, followed by the thread being shut down.

 

Let me know if you decide to re-engage any of the actual, original debate with rational responses, CR. Until then, I'll just sit back and watch you destroy another thread.

Link to comment
Edit: Please also feel free to add Stupid Rule Cache to your "Caches that make me Grumpy" public bookmark list...

Jamie - NFA

That looks like fun! I wish it twern't 1100 miles away. I'd go for it.

And please don't tell my you're reverting to the old "Ignore KBI" thing -- again.

KBI? Who is this KBI of whom you speak? :):)

Owners of extreme-terrain caches do this for obvious reasons: to weed out a majority of false find claims on highly-popular extreme caches

I only own two caches that could result in death to the finder, and neither of them requires a Secret Squirrel code word.

I'm just not that worried about false finds. Maybe I have an antiparanoia gene? Obviously the guidelines suggest that a cache owner is responsible for ensuring that the logs on his/her cache are legitimate. No problem. If I suspected a fake find, I would check the log on my next maintenance run. At that point, any fake finds would cease to exist. I don't need a code word to keep the finds accurate. All I need to do is maintain the cache as required by the guidelines. Does this require extra effort on my part? Sure, but since I created the cache, I should be willing to put forth the effort of maintaining it. Your code word security system is too easy to bypass. Comparing the log book against the on-line finds offers a far greater degree of success in weeding out those who like to post fake finds.

Link to comment

received a reply from the cache owner:

 

"xxxxxxx xxxxxx cache is simply for those who have a few (99 or more) caches under their belts. Almost like being in an elite group. I'm thinking of putting one out for those with 499 or more. I can't sign in the cache myself, but then you're not suppose to sign your own caches anyway.

This is not a new concept. I have seen it before and the advisor gave me some tips as how others do it.

Hope you are able to get to this cache."

I've traded e-mails with the cache owner

 

:)

 

I might have missed it - with all the bs - was the owner of the '99' cache dragged in to discuss his reasoning for such an easy requirement? At least he states when he'll delete a log. I've heard of log deletions for apparently no reason.

 

easy if you have 99 finds. plus the whole elite thing bugs me.

If you don't want me to log your cache, make it a puzzle (I'm not too bright),Or put it 10 miles down a difficult trail (I'm fat also) :) . Putting out a traditional and then saying I'll delete your log just because your a newbie just seems wrong to me.

 

Maybe one day I'll get to hang with the cool kids

 

Jeff Barstool

 

edit: fat fingers

Edited by TeamBarstool
Link to comment
To have someone remove the red checkmark because I didn't take a picture of myself wearing panties on my head (or something else that is stupid), is pathetic.

If you hunt a wear-panties-on-your-head cache; one which indicates a logging requirement, clearly stated in the description, dictating visual documentation of yourself wearing panties on your head; then you knowingly choose to log the find without complying with the cache the way the owner designed it -- then who's being pathetic? :)

 

The cache owner who deletes the log when wearing panties on ones head has nothing to do with finding the cache and signing the logbook.

And who said you HAD to hunt the panty cache in the first place? In your hypothetical example it's you who has chosen to hunt the panty cache, yet actively refused to comply with the requirement. Who's fault is that? Why would you hunt and log such a cache if you knew you weren't going to finish it? Sounds pretty pointless to me.

 

But I did finish it, this hypothetical cache. I found the cache and signed the log. I went to the place where someone put a cache to see the sights. This is what caching is about for me. I use the red check mark to note that I have visited the cache, the way gc.com is supposed to work. Doing something stupid does not change the fact that I was there. I'm sure you feel everyone must have the cache page memorized verbatim in order to find a cache, but not everyone does, or is even able... for example being out and about and having the GPS in hand with waypoints, but not every single cache page on hand while they are on the road. That's right, lets kick them for not being in the cool group! That'll show him to cache the way we say they should cache! DELETE LOG DELETE LOG DELETE LOG! Wheee. I'm cool.

 

I've been there, I found the cache, I signed the log. By deleting it, you are messing up the core of the functionality of gc.com. It is intended to keep track of where I have been. For me. Not for you.

Discussing core functionality and original intent is a very weak argument.

 

Look at it this way: The core of the functionality of the Global Positioning System is to provide a precision navigation system to the United States Military. It is intended to keep track of where soldiers are. For them. Not you.

 

The US government has decided (for now, anyway) to make those signals available to the general public. By using the GPS system to locate hidden containers of trinkets you are messing with the core of the functionality of the system as it was intended.

 

Therefore, if the owner of an ALR (Additional Logging Requirement) cache is wrong to delete your smiley after you thumb your nose at his cache theme, then aren't we are all wrong for using gummint satellites to play this game in the first place?

 

The owner of an ALR cache is merely trying to think outside the box in order to provide you with a variety of entertainment. Those who dislike ALR caches are free to avoid ALR caches, just like those who dislike puzzle caches are free to avoid puzzle caches, and those who dislike watercraft-required caches are free to avoid watercraft-required caches.

 

No need to whine about ALRs. Just avoid them, and move on to something you do like. :D

 

Speaking of weak arguments. :) It's okay to delete logs of caches that have been physically found and signed because... the government now lets us use GPS signals? What?

You completely missed the point.

 

Vinny & Sue Team didn't seem to have any trouble understanding it.

 

Wanna try again?

No, I think I understood you quite well.

Edited by New England n00b
Link to comment
Multis and puzzle caches are part of the system, and virtuals are part of the system at Waymarking. Special logging requirements are NOT the same thing.

Neither are event caches. Should they go too?

 

Why? They are part of the current system that gc.com has made. Special logging requirements are a 'work-around' implemented by the users.

 

I don't expect every cache owner to check the logbook. But to delete a log without even checking because of a non-critical logging requirement is not right. Maybe the puritans should stay, and the panty-logging caches should leave. Virtuals left, why not stupid requirements?

So if I think puzzle caches are stupid, should they be eliminated also?

 

You think ALRs are stupid. Fine. Why not leave it at that? There's no reason to clamp down on other people's fun just to 'clean up the menu' in in order to satisfy your tender tastes.

 

If the mere existence of ALR caches drives you to demand their removal ... be careful what you ask for. Someone else may follow your precedent and succeed in the removal of all micros. Or all one-stars. Or who knows, maybe pumpkin- or badger-themed caches will be the next group scheduled for extermination.

 

You never know what's going to offend somebody -- God forbid anyone should be expected to simply avoid caches they don't like. :)

 

... With the way everyone is icon crazy, I think it'd be a better system than what is around now - people deleting logs out of spite.

Now you've gone off topic. Who's been deleting logs out of spite? When did that come up?

For the first section, see my comment above. Secondly, I am not calling for teh removal of them. I don't mind if there is a second class of WhoopeeI'mSpecial Find log. Just don't delete a plain log. This would require a bit of work to implement, but it would keep this mess under control. Plain loggers would get the basic functionality out gc.com, and happy special people could say they are 'x' number of super-smilies happier than other users. No unnecessary log deletion required.

 

For the second, deleting a log because of something stupid, when the finder did find the cache and signed the log, is a spiteful "I'll show YOU!" type of act.

Edited by New England n00b
Link to comment

Now there are people...cachers even......that would take GREAT exception to such an idea.

 

Now, let me make this perfectly clear.....I am NOT one of the people that I am going

to describe, but I know of such people.

 

There are several that I know of that would trash that cache. Totally.

 

There are still others that would not only trash the cache...but would PLOW SALT into the ground to

insure nothing would grow there ever again.

 

And then there are the extremists. They would go to such lengths over such a matter..........I

don't even want to get into the sordid details of their depravity. Especially old "Luke". I have seen

mean and wicked before...but Luke has done stuff that makes me......HEAVE!

 

It takes all kinds to make up a geocaching world.......all kinds. :)

Edited by chuckwagon101
Link to comment
I will continue to express that opinion and I will advocate others to express their opinion about it, as well, ignoring the requirement.

Will you also continue to suggest caches with ALRs be eliminated?

Have you stopped beating your wife?

Here come the irrelevant tangents. Right on shedule.

 

Anything but argue the issue. Right, CR?

 

Just following your brother's lead.

 

Besides, what is there to argue? I've stated my position. Time and time again even. I'm tired of repeating myself while trying following your tangents or argue semantics. I'm sure you believe if you keep repeating your personal attacks hoping for new audiences in each new thread you'll be able to garner some support.

 

My opinion is very simple. You sign the log, it's considered a legitimate find and you deserve to be able log it where it is listed with the proper log type.

 

How hard is it to understand that?

 

ALR's are wrong. Period.

 

Cache avoidance is a non-issue. Once the log is signed, the cache is found.

Link to comment

 

Look at it this way: The core of the functionality of the Global Positioning System is to provide a precision navigation system to the United States Military. It is intended to keep track of where soldiers are. For them. Not you.

 

The US government has decided (for now, anyway) to make those signals available to the general public. By using the GPS system to locate hidden containers of trinkets you are messing with the core of the functionality of the system as it was intended.

 

Therefore, if the owner of an ALR (Additional Logging Requirement) cache is wrong to delete your smiley after you thumb your nose at his cache theme, then aren't we are all wrong for using gummint satellites to play this game in the first place?

 

 

This is an incredible leap of logic. What on EARTH does one have to do with the other???

 

As much as I hate to chase an irrelevent tangent, this is analogous to saying that because my F350 is designed to carry 11 or 12K down the road, that if I happen to use it to go off-roading in the river, or to simply drive it to work empty, that I am messing with the "core functionality" or Ford Motor Company? Yeah, umm...right. Whatever.

 

Everyone sell your Ford stock first thing Monday AM. Oh, BTW, WTH does "core functionality" mean as related to the GPS system, anyway?

Edited by disenchanted
Link to comment
I'm sure you feel everyone must have the cache page memorized verbatim in order to find a cache...

I think you exaggerate JUST a wee ...

 

 

... but not everyone does, or is even able... for example being out and about and having the GPS in hand with waypoints, but not every single cache page on hand while they are on the road.

Hunting a cache without having read the description is your choice to make, but you must understand that it is a choice. By doing so you risk problems. Nobody's making you take that risk. Whining about the negative consequences only makes you sound immature.

 

 

That's right, lets kick them for not being in the cool group! That'll show him to cache the way we say they should cache! DELETE LOG DELETE LOG DELETE LOG! Wheee. I'm cool.

:)

Link to comment
Multis and puzzle caches are part of the system, and virtuals are part of the system at Waymarking. Special logging requirements are NOT the same thing.

Neither are event caches. Should they go too?

Why? They are part of the current system that gc.com has made. Special logging requirements are a 'work-around' implemented by the users.

Yes, you are exactly, precisely correct: special logging requirements are a 'work-around' implemented by the owners. So? What's your point? That still doesn't tell me why you can't simply avoid caches you don't like.

 

 

For the second, deleting a log because of something stupid, when the finder did find the cache and signed the log, is a spiteful "I'll show YOU!" type of act.

I think you are reading WAY too much into the meaning of logging requirements. What makes you think the motivations behind ALR caches are malicious? :) Got any evidence?

Link to comment
What is there to argue?

I asked you six very reasonable and very specific questions based on your answer to the previous question. Your refusal to answer those questions indicates to me that you are either unable -- or afraid -- to argue the issue any further.

 

Care to take a shot at them?

 

 

My opinion is very simple. You sign the log, it's considered a legitimate find and you deserve to be able log it where it is listed with the proper log type.

No, It's NOT considered a legitimate find if you refused to comply with a clearly stated requirement. Your saying it is doesn't make it so.

 

 

How hard is it to understand that?

What I don't understand it this: Why would you log a cache online just to intentionally thumb your nose at a clearly stated logging requirement? Why not just skip the cache altogether?

 

 

ALR's are wrong. Period.

Correction: ALRs are wrong in your opinion. Not everyone shares your particular version of how the game should be played.

 

 

Cache avoidance is a non-issue. Once the log is signed, the cache is found.

A non-issue? But CR, you've just told me that you're willing to avoid caches that you don't like. Are you changing your mind AGAIN?!?!?

 

If you're going to avoid the cache, what are you doing signing the log? :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Look at it this way: The core of the functionality of the Global Positioning System is to provide a precision navigation system to the United States Military. It is intended to keep track of where soldiers are. For them. Not you.

 

The US government has decided (for now, anyway) to make those signals available to the general public. By using the GPS system to locate hidden containers of trinkets you are messing with the core of the functionality of the system as it was intended.

 

Therefore, if the owner of an ALR (Additional Logging Requirement) cache is wrong to delete your smiley after you thumb your nose at his cache theme, then aren't we are all wrong for using gummint satellites to play this game in the first place?

 

This is an incredible leap of logic. What on EARTH does one have to do with the other???

 

As much as I hate to chase an irrelevent tangent, this is analogous to saying that because my F350 is designed to carry 11 or 12K down the road, that if I happen to use it to go off-roading in the river, or to simply drive it to work empty, that I am messing with the "core functionality" or Ford Motor Company? Yeah, umm...right. Whatever.

No irrelevance. You appear to have understood perfectly. Sounds pretty silly, doesn't it? That's my point exactly.

 

Noob tried to use the same logic to convince me that it's wrong to employ cache logs for anything other than their original purpose -- his version of how the game should be played by everyone else. The intent of my analogy was to point out the silliness of that argument.

Link to comment
Sorry, KBI, you've already tipped your hand that you're a pretty smart guy. You can't possibly not see the holes in your logic and argument.

And you, apparently, are unable to point them out to me. Please show me the holes in my logic and arguments. Can you?

 

You could start by answering my six questions.

 

Why are you afraid to tackle those six questions, CR?

Link to comment

Oh, BTW, WTH does "core functionality" mean as related to the GPS system, anyway?

 

What does "core functionality" mean with respect to geocaching.com? I think this is where those so adamantly opposed to ALR caches don't understand. I believe they confuse Dave Ulmer's instruction to finders of the first cache he hid with "rules" for geocaching. Dave Ulmer instructions to those that found his cache were:

  1. Take something
  2. Leave something
  3. Write about in the log

Unfortunately, geocaching.com repeats these instruction as the rules giving the puritans a sacred text to prove their position.

 

Even if these are the rules for "finding" a cache, they clearly don't say anything about logging online. Jeremy Irish established geocaching.com as a website to list caches. The caches belong to the cache owner and they make the rules for logging their caches. Geocaching.com has developed guidelines for caching over the years, generally because of problems (either forseen or unforseen concerning cache placement). In the logging area they added a requirement that physical caches must have a log book. I suspect that this was mainly to avoid virtual caches getting listed as traditionals, but it may also be as a way to adjudicate disputes between cache owners and hiders as to whether a cache was actually found. (The problem not being additional requirements but rather the logging of a find because you saw the cache but were unable to get to it). Geocaching.com has chosen to continue to list caches with additional logging requirements so long as they seem reasonable to the volunteer reviewer. The ability of the cache owner to delete logs makes ALR caches a core functionality of the geocaching.com website.

Link to comment
This 99 cache requirement doesn't even give you a choice, you either qualify or you don't. It penalizes cachers for something they may not have any control over!

Nobody has to be penalized for anything. Who says you have to hunt the cache in the first place?

Link to comment
Sorry, KBI, you've already tipped your hand that you're a pretty smart guy. You can't possibly not see the holes in your logic and argument.

And you, apparently, are unable to point them out to me. Please show me the holes in my logic and arguments. Can you?

 

You could start by answering my six questions.

 

Why are you afraid to tackle those six questions, CR?

 

Oh, I can point out your holes, but that would only add yet another tangent for you to follow in an attempt to further muddy the issue.

 

You simply can't reconcile "sign the log and it's a find" with your ALR. A core tenant long held is in order to be able to claim a find you have to sign the log. Many owners of caches with an ALR will even recognize a find, without compliance, in a note. The community will even recognize a find by a non-cacher who stumbles over the cache. This tenant is simple: sign the log, it's a find. Yes, it is my opinion and it's shared with a good number of others, kind possibly a vast majority. I wouldn't knock "opinion" if I were you.

 

I went back and read your "six questions" and, as I thought, they're completely irrelevant. Three try to muddy the issue with cache avoidance, one claims stating a contrary opinion is being inconsiderate, one claims ALRs are benign when they are not, and the last one is simply laughable.

 

The issue really boils down to someone being able to log their find online regardless of the journey up to the point where they signed the log.

Link to comment
Oh, I can point out your holes, but that would only add yet another tangent for you to follow in an attempt to further muddy the issue.

Translation: You have nothing further to say about my reasoning, because you can't find any holes in my reasoning.

 

At least none that you can articulate. Else you would have already answered my invitation to do so.

 

 

You simply can't reconcile "sign the log and it's a find" with your ALR. A core tenant long held is in order to be able to claim a find you have to sign the log. Many owners of caches with an ALR will even recognize a find, without compliance, in a note. The community will even recognize a find by a non-cacher who stumbles over the cache. This tenant is simple: sign the log, it's a find. Yes, it is my opinion and it's shared with a good number of others, kind possibly a vast majority.

That's a bold claim. Got any evidence?

 

 

I wouldn't knock "opinion" if I were you.

Your opinion is just that. Merely an opinion. Get over yourself.

 

 

I went back and read your "six questions" and, as I thought, they're completely irrelevant. Three try to muddy the issue with cache avoidance, one claims stating a contrary opinion is being inconsiderate, one claims ALRs are benign when they are not, and the last one is simply laughable.

Translation: You're still afraid to answer the questions.

 

You could start by using some sort of logical argument to back up your claim that ALRs are not benign.

 

Let's also be accurate: I never said "stating a contrary opinion is being inconsiderate." It's your stated goal of thumbing your nose at ALR (and other) cache owners by intentinally violating any theme you don't happen to like that's inconsiderate.

 

And how, exactly, does cache avoidance "muddy the issue?" Cache avoidance is critical to the issue! You've already admitted that you'd be willing to simply avoid caches you don't like. Why isn't that enough for you? It's enough for me! There are caches I don't care for, but I don't come in here and whine about them while begging for them to be eliminated! If I could ever get you to answer just ONE of those questions, it would be this one: If you're willing to bypass caches you don't like, then why can't you just leave it at that instead of demanding rule changes to eliminate such hides?

 

You say the last question is laughable. I say it's crucial. You've never explained whay it's not enough for you that you have the power to avoid caches you don't like, and to leave everybody else alone.

 

 

The issue really boils down to someone being able to log their find online regardless of the journey up to the point where they signed the log.

Again, that's your opinion. That's merely your version of how you think everyone else should play the game.

Link to comment

Well...

Actually to be technically correct... in a puritanical sort of way... well, actually the FIND is completed when you first actually observe the cache. Usually this is a visual observation, but might also be a tactile observation in some cases. This is that unique moment in time at which the cacher often shouts loudly, "I FOUND IT!" You know... THAT moment.

 

I totally don't see the relevance in signing a log to claim that you found a cache. As CR said, you can't "unfind" a cache by deleting log or any other means (unless of course you have an active flux capacitor and a Delorean at your disposal).

 

Now if what you intend to say is that you completed the traditional task of geocaching as it is generally practised by the rules and guidelines of GC.com, perhaps signing the log and logging online is relevant. So then is complying with the owner's wishes for special logging requirements.

 

Is it so terribly wrong to simply do what the owner asks if you wish to log (online) HIS/HER cache- his/her GIFT to you and the community at large?

Edited by Confucius' Cat
Link to comment

*** "Jaws" music playing***

 

Luke is on his way.....even as we speak.

 

Luke does not understand "core functionality" or almost anything else beyone third grade. Uhhh, make

that second grade!

 

One other thing....don't let Luke pet your rabbit! He likes to pet soft things, but gets carried away.

 

Good old Luke! He is a good ole' boy! Simple, yet direct. You can tell its Luke when you see him. He has these big, gnarly hands.

 

:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Again, that's your opinion. That's merely your version of how you think everyone else should play the game.

 

You keep throwing that out there as if simply being an opinion somehow self-invalidates--makes it less meaningful.

 

The killing of another person without justification is wrong. Of course, it's merely my opinion. Not everyone holds that opinion.

 

Never mind it is also illegal.

 

Like I said, don't knock "opinion."

 

You keep bringing up issue about avoidance, try to get a rise out of me by calling me hypocritical, and generally try to twist my point of view. One thing I don't recall seeing is your reasoning why it's okay.

 

Before you try to point back to one of your posts about "fun" there's a lot of things that folks can think is fun, but completely wrong. Heck, on 60 Minutes last night there was a segment about kids beating up and killing homeless people. One kid, in for a 35 year sentence, was asked why he and his friends did it. One of the reasons, "it was fun."

 

I've told you mine. You tell me yours. Let's hear it. Convince me.

 

Unless it's simply an indefensible position.

Link to comment

I think I made my position clear ealier in the thread that I am not a fan of ALR caches. If there was a way to sort them out easily, I would likely do so. That being said, I don't believe for a second that their existence is a danger to the game (whatever that is).

 

CR- I really don't understand why you continually get bent out of shape in your insistence that the game conform to your desires. It's sad.

Link to comment
Again, that's your opinion. That's merely your version of how you think everyone else should play the game.
You keep throwing that out there as if simply being an opinion somehow self-invalidates--makes it less meaningful.

 

The killing of another person without justification is wrong. Of course, it's merely my opinion. Not everyone holds that opinion.

 

Never mind it is also illegal.

 

Like I said, don't knock "opinion."

 

You keep bringing up issue about avoidance, try to get a rise out of me by calling me hypocritical, and generally try to twist my point of view. One thing I don't recall seeing is your reasoning why it's okay.

 

Before you try to point back to one of your posts about "fun" there's a lot of things that folks can think is fun, but completely wrong. Heck, on 60 Minutes last night there was a segment about kids beating up and killing homeless people. One kid, in for a 35 year sentence, was asked why he and his friends did it. One of the reasons, "it was fun."

 

I've told you mine. You tell me yours. Let's hear it. Convince me.

 

Unless it's simply an indefensible position.

That may have been the most obvious straw man ever used (outside of politics). I scanned the thread and couldn't find anyone who came out on the side of murder or teh beating of homeless people. I also noticed that it wasn't the topic of the thread.

 

I'm afraid the I completely missed your point. It's rather like saying that I know you're wrong because John Lennon is dead. If you can convince me that he's alive, I'll concede your point.

Link to comment

Well...

Actually to be technically correct... in a puritanical sort of way... well, actually the FIND is completed when you first actually observe the cache. Usually this is a visual observation, but might also be a tactile observation in some cases. This is that unique moment in time at which the cacher often shouts loudly, "I FOUND IT!" You know... THAT moment.

 

I totally don't see the relevance in signing a log to claim that you found a cache. As CR said, you can't "unfind" a cache by deleting log or any other means (unless of course you have an active flux capacitor and a Delorean at your disposal).

 

Now if what you intend to say is that you completed the traditional task of geocaching as it is generally practised by the rules and guidelines of GC.com, perhaps signing the log and logging online is relevant. So then is complying with the owner's wishes for special logging requirements.

 

Is it so terribly wrong to simply do what the owner asks if you wish to log (online) HIS/HER cache- his/her GIFT to you and the community at large?

My last post on the issue, as my mind is set, and so is the oppositions.

 

Your first paragraph is not correct in the context of geocaching.com. Signing the log is integral. If it weren't, there would be no logbook.

 

Your second paragraph overlooks (as everyone seems wont to do) that the tools provided by geocaching.com are for keeping track of where one has been. As Jeremy has said, it isn't about the numbers. It is about going out to see new areas, interesting places. The find log creates the red check mark on the cache browsing page to let you know you've found/been to that place. Cache owners deleting that unfairly (that is, outside of abuse guidelines) interferes with people trying to keep track using the system that geocaching.com has provided. End of story. While my 'found number' is interesting, sort of, it is not why I use the system in the first place. Why even HAVE a system for keeping track if people are going to abuse finders?

 

Your third paragraph is wrong. Special requirements have nothing to do with finding the cache. Puzzle caches, you need to solve the clues. There is a system in place for this, and puzzle caches are listed accordingly. Multicaches require visiting multiple waypoints - don't hit all the waypoints, you may likely not find the cache at all. These have a gc.com system in place as well. There is no system where the finder can opt out and just use geocaching.com to simply KEEP TRACK, when hiders go and delete logs because finders don't fulfill arbitrary 'requirements'. I'm all for the addition of implementing a system that allows users to just use the system as intended, and also allow the SuperHappyFunTime heroes to have their fun.

 

As to your last point... When they -ASK-, that's one thing. Maybe I would, maybe I wouldn't. When they DEMAND and threaten, YEAH IT IS WRONG.

 

And with that last bit, you all can continue to try and convince each other of your position. I will continue to use the system correctly, and make a pubic bookmark should anyone follow through with interfering with the system that I use. No one in here is going to change their minds, so until a motion is put on place to adjust the system to work as the base version and the 'expanded' version, there is little point is discussing this further.

Link to comment
... And with that last bit, you all can continue to try and convince each other of your position. I will continue to use the system correctly, and make a pubic bookmark should anyone follow through with interfering with the system that I use. No one in here is going to change their minds, so until a motion is put on place to adjust the system to work as the base version and the 'expanded' version, there is little point is discussing this further.

I get your position on this issue, but your last statement confuses me. What do you mean by 'base' and 'expanded'? Would the 'base' system just have traditional caches and 'expanded' have everything else? What would be the point of splitting the game in this manner?

 

Wouldn't it be simpler to just allow for a way to filter ALRs out so you don't have to deal with them and cause hard feelings between you and your peers when you violate their requirements?

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
This 99 cache requirement doesn't even give you a choice, you either qualify or you don't. It penalizes cachers for something they may not have any control over!

Nobody has to be penalized for anything. Who says you have to hunt the cache in the first place?

 

Nobody says i have to hunt anything, but i am a cacher who likes to do what cachers do,,,, find caches. If i just happen to be in the area where this cache is hidden, then why wouldn't i want to hunt for this cache? :rolleyes:

 

As n00b stated above (good post by the way), minds are made up and they aren't likely to change. Some here just like to argue for the sake of it so i'm making this my last post as well.

 

The cache in question is not detrimental to geocaching. I also believe that the owner placed it with good intentions in mind. It does have it's flaws, at least in my mind, and i just hope the owner doesn't mind receiving criticsm from time to time.

Link to comment

Puritan problems. :rolleyes:

 

No more than one found log for each cacher per cache

No found it log on caches you own

Owners can not delete logs except if they provide proof that the log sheet was not signed

 

1a) If your area has a grandfathered "moving cache" then it is common to log it every time you find it.

1b) If your area has a monthly event cache it is common to log it each month you attend.

2) If you adopt a cache then it is common to leave your found log even after you are shown as the owner.

3) Obscene logs, logs that contain the tracking numbers of Travel Bugs and logs that are made in error are all commonly deleted.

 

I do think an attribute to filter ALR caches would be helpful.

Earthcaches will now require Additional Logging Requirement's to comply with the new GSA guidelines.

Link to comment
CR- I really don't understand why you continually get bent out of shape in your insistence that the game conform to your desires. It's sad.

 

I'm not getting bent out of shape over it. I'm simply defending my position.

 

But I suppose defending a position that is contrary to your own is "getting bent out of shape."

 

I'm afraid the I completely missed your point.

 

Not surprisingly.

 

"'Fun' is not a justification" is my point. People will do the wrong thing for "fun" is my point. I'm asking for a justification for placing an ALR on a cache.

 

Oh, and "because I can" is about the same as deleting any log "just because I can."

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 1
×
×
  • Create New...