Logging requirements

[+Yno]

I took a little walk yesterday in an area with a good amount of caches. I ran a PQ and asked for only traditionals, as I am a newbie and don't want to mess with puzzles and multis yet. The info for these was on my PDA. As I got ready to look for the next cache, I read the info, and only then discovered that it had logging requirements making it impossible for me to log it any time soon. No big deal, as there were plenty of other places to visit. Short of reading every cache page before I go out each time, is there any way to filter these out? It seems to me they ought to be in the puzzle category, as they require "solving" some set of requirements before hand. I have only been geocaching for a few weeks and have under 100 finds, so I don't mean to rock the boat. Just curious.

[+Bill & Tammy]

I took a little walk yesterday in an area with a good amount of caches. I ran a PQ and asked for only traditionals, as I am a newbie and don't want to mess with puzzles and multis yet. The info for these was on my PDA. As I got ready to look for the next cache, I read the info, and only then discovered that it had logging requirements making it impossible for me to log it any time soon. No big deal, as there were plenty of other places to visit. Short of reading every cache page before I go out each time, is there any way to filter these out? It seems to me they ought to be in the puzzle category, as they require "solving" some set of requirements before hand. I have only been geocaching for a few weeks and have under 100 finds, so I don't mean to rock the boat. Just curious.

 

No way to filter the contents of the cache description but I am assuming this cache may have had a higher difficulty which can be filtered.

[+sbell111]

Unfortunately, we'll always have caches that are miscategorized.

 

Luckily, you don't have to read every description before heading out. Just read the description of the cache that you are considering doing next. It only takes a minute and will identify those that you are not interested in.

[Mushtang]

It seems to me they ought to be in the puzzle category, as they require "solving" some set of requirements before hand.

If a cache container IS at the posted coordinates, then it's not supposed to be in the puzzle catagory.

 

What were the requirements you had to "solve"?

[+tozainamboku]

It seems to me they ought to be in the puzzle category, as they require "solving" some set of requirements before hand.

If a cache container IS at the posted coordinates, then it's not supposed to be in the puzzle catagory.

 

What were the requirements you had to "solve"?

 

How would you classfy a cache at the posted coordinate but had to solve a puzzle to get the combination to the lock on the container?

[+sbell111]

It seems to me they ought to be in the puzzle category, as they require "solving" some set of requirements before hand.

If a cache container IS at the posted coordinates, then it's not supposed to be in the puzzle catagory.

 

What were the requirements you had to "solve"?

 

How would you classfy a cache at the posted coordinate but had to solve a puzzle to get the combination to the lock on the container?

A puzzle, even though it doesn't dovetail perfectly with the definition.

[+flask]

there isn't currently an attribute for "additional logging requirement", but these caches are now numerous enough that it might be worth an attribute icon. of course the success of an attribute icon depends on the cache owner correctly using it, but it would make it possible for a PQ to pick out those caches.

[+flask]

double post. sorry.

Edited January 10, 2007 by flask

[+Bill & Tammy]

there isn't currently an attribute for "additional logging requirement", but these caches are now numerous enough that it might be worth an attribute icon. of course the success of an attribute icon depends on the cache owner correctly using it, but it would make it possible for a PQ to pick out those caches.

 

I would agree that is something worth looking into to but it wouldn'y have helped with a situation I have found myself in; Before I got my smart phone with internet capabilities I at times ended up at caches that I hunted on-the-fly because I had the waypoint in my GPSr and I happened to be near it. In this case I had no cache info and then found when returning home I had not fulfilled a logging requirement such as this cache can only be logged on your birthday etc.

 

I guess on the whole I really don't care of caches with additional requirements as they only tend to limit the number of visits.

Edited January 10, 2007 by Bill & Tammy

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I am rarely in favor of adding complexity but this is one I would want.

 

I do most of my geocaching on the road, using a PQ for the target area or Caches Along A Route.

 

I do not, therefore, often have the ability, time or desire to go find an access point and look something up or return another day.

 

I think any cache that cannot be found solely by the information on the listing should be classified as a puzzle or have an Additional Logging Requirement attribute - either one lets me skip them in a PQ.

[Mushtang]

It seems to me they ought to be in the puzzle category, as they require "solving" some set of requirements before hand.

If a cache container IS at the posted coordinates, then it's not supposed to be in the puzzle catagory.

 

What were the requirements you had to "solve"?

 

How would you classfy a cache at the posted coordinate but had to solve a puzzle to get the combination to the lock on the container?

I have one almost exactly like that, and it's listed as a regular cache. According to the site's definitions that's what it is. I'm all for changing my cache type if the definition of the Puzzle Cache changes. But as for now, ALR caches, or puzzle caches that are AT the posted coordinates, are regular caches.

[+StarBrand]

I am rarely in favor of adding complexity but this is one I would want.

 

I do most of my geocaching on the road, using a PQ for the target area or Caches Along A Route.

 

I do not, therefore, often have the ability, time or desire to go find an access point and look something up or return another day.

 

I think any cache that cannot be found solely by the information on the listing should be classified as a puzzle or have an Additional Logging Requirement attribute - either one lets me skip them in a PQ.

 

I will actually have to agree with the rambler here - just to avoid most of the confusion that arises - these ALR caches need to be re-classified somehow. For filtering purposes more than anything else.

[+ePeterso2]

How would you classfy a cache at the posted coordinate but had to solve a puzzle to get the combination to the lock on the container?

I have one exactly like that, and I asked the local reviewer how to classify one of these before I submitted it for review. She described her interpretation this way:

 

If the container is at the posted coordinates and the cache hunter can solve the puzzle on the site using nothing more than information provided on the cache description page (plus any other information found at the site), then it's just a difficult traditional cache.

 

If the container is not at the posted coordinates, or the cache hunter will not be able to solve the puzzle at the site with the cache description page (where the cacher may have to do research on the internet, for example), then it's a puzzle cache.

 

Your mileage may vary with your local reviewer.

Edited January 10, 2007 by ePeterso2

[+Renegade Knight]

How would you classfy a cache at the posted coordinate but had to solve a puzzle to get the combination to the lock on the container?

I have one exactly like that, and I asked the local reviewer how to classify one of these before I submitted it for review. She described her interpretation this way:

 

If the container is at the posted coordinates and the cache hunter can solve the puzzle on the site using nothing more than information provided on the cache description page (plus any other information found at the site), then it's just a difficult traditional cache.

 

If the container is not at the posted coordinates, or the cache hunter will not be able to solve the puzzle at the site with the cache description page (where the cacher may have to do research on the internet, for example), then it's a puzzle cache.

 

Your mileage may vary with your local reviewer.

 

That's a good description.

[+Team Merlin]

I too wish there was a way to filter out puzzle caches..... I run a PQ for 500 Regular size or bigger non multi within 100 miles & load them all in my PDA & GPS. Its nice to have this in our car so we can cache whenever. It bums me out that I can't filter out Puzzles & Spirit Quests.

[Clan Riffster]

Why can't you filter out puzzles?

 

Edit to add: Sign me up with those who want an ALR attribute.

[+sbell111]

Why can't you filter out puzzles?

 

Edit to add: Sign me up with those who want an ALR attribute.

You can filter out puzzles. However, ALRs don't cleanly fit the definition of puzzles, so most are listed as trads.

[+Yno]

The cache was only listed as a 2/1, and I have managed a 3 so far! The logging requirement was that you had to find some tokens that the owner had hidden around. I don't know if these were in other caches or just hidden around the area. I really didn't follow up, as I don't have that much interest in ever trying to log a find on this one. Anyway, I like the idea of an ALR attribute. Like I said, I read the description as I was leaving the previous find, so I didn't even bother with it. It would have been a bummer if all of the cached in that area had ALRs.

[+eigengott]

is there any way to filter these out?

 

Yes, there is. It's called the "Ignore ALRs Method". That is: just find the box, sign the logbook and forget about any additional logging requirements. A find is a find is a find.

 

If the owner wants you to do something special, he should be a bit more creative and design it as a multi-cache stage or puzzle you have to do/solve in order to get the final coordinates - not the other way round.

[+Happy Humphrey]

is there any way to filter these out?

 

Yes, there is. It's called the "Ignore ALRs Method". That is: just find the box, sign the logbook and forget about any additional logging requirements. A find is a find is a find.

 

If the owner wants you to do something special, he should be a bit more creative and design it as a multi-cache stage or puzzle you have to do/solve in order to get the final coordinates - not the other way round.

 

Nicely put!

 

The cache owner was too lazy to design the task or puzzle so that it gives you the location of the cache, preferring to set a task to be completed AFTER the find and threatening reprisals should you not comply. But the cache is at the coordinates, and there's nothing to stop you logging it.

 

I think that the main reason for requesting an "ALR cache" attribute is so that these caches can be easily identified and avoided. Which would be nice!

[Mushtang]

is there any way to filter these out?

 

Yes, there is. It's called the "Ignore ALRs Method". That is: just find the box, sign the logbook and forget about any additional logging requirements. A find is a find is a find.

 

If the owner wants you to do something special, he should be a bit more creative and design it as a multi-cache stage or puzzle you have to do/solve in order to get the final coordinates - not the other way round.

You could either ignore the cache completely, and not even find it, or go ahead and ignore the requirement and have your online log deleted (that is, if you choose to log your find).

 

If the owner clearly stated in the description what is required in order to log the cache, and you ignore it, then I hope you're not surprised with a deletion. I think you'll find that a find is not a find.

[+Mudfrog]

I'm not positive but i thought i had read here on the forums where GC.com really didn't care for the idea of ALR caches. If this is the case, then i would suspect that it might not want to encourage the practice by creating an ALR attribute. Your best bet for filtering right now is to leave out puzzles and limit the difficulty ratings in your queries. Not 100% effective but it would help.

 

I've done an ALR cache or two but they were fun and not difficult to complete. They could be done at site with everything neccesary to complete the task.

 

My two pet peeves:

Caches that aim at target groups and leave others out (ie, have to be at, above, or below a certain age to claim a find)

and

Caches that require some kind of email verification (the reason i don't enjoy virtuals)

Edited January 11, 2007 by Mudfrog

[+Team GPSaxophone]

The cache was only listed as a 2/1, and I have managed a 3 so far! The logging requirement was that you had to find some tokens that the owner had hidden around. I don't know if these were in other caches or just hidden around the area. I really didn't follow up, as I don't have that much interest in ever trying to log a find on this one. Anyway, I like the idea of an ALR attribute. Like I said, I read the description as I was leaving the previous find, so I didn't even bother with it. It would have been a bummer if all of the cached in that area had ALRs.

It sounds like this is a "reverse" multicache (i.e. find the final, then the stages). It doesn't sound much like a traditional cache.

[+eigengott]

I think you'll find that a find is not a find.

 

The owner can delete the online log - technically. Still I have made the find (and the physical log). I know it, the owner knows it and the finders after me know it. Let others decide who's acting silly here.

Edited January 11, 2007 by eigengott

[+carleenp]

is there any way to filter these out?

 

Yes, there is. It's called the "Ignore ALRs Method". That is: just find the box, sign the logbook and forget about any additional logging requirements. A find is a find is a find.

 

If the owner wants you to do something special, he should be a bit more creative and design it as a multi-cache stage or puzzle you have to do/solve in order to get the final coordinates - not the other way round.

 

That is a good point. Even if the log gets deleted, there is the personal knowledge that you found it.

 

But I would still really like to be able to easily filter out caches with additional logging requirements. I really tend to dislike those, so I would prefer to more easily ignore them over finding one, ignoring the additional requirement, and waiting to see if my log gets deleted.

 

One solution is to require that they all be listed as mystery caches, but that would cause problems for people who might want to filter for true puzzle cahces, yet avoid ones that are just traditionals with extra logging requirements. Although I suppose since puzzle caches generally require that the page be read to solve them, self filtering while reading the pages might work from there.

Edited January 11, 2007 by carleenp

[+sbell111]

I'm not positive but i thought i had read here on the forums where GC.com really didn't care for the idea of ALR caches. If this is the case, then i would suspect that it might not want to encourage the practice by creating an ALR attribute. Your best bet for filtering right now is to leave out puzzles and limit the difficulty ratings in your queries. Not 100% effective but it would help. ...

As I recall (without actually searching), Jeremy personally believes them to be 'silly', but TPTB have no formal opinion, one way or the other. The fact that they continue to be approved would suggest that they do not see it as an issue.

[+ePeterso2]

Why can't you filter out puzzles?

Because the Pocket Query editing form is missing a checkbox for "Mystery/Puzzle" caches. It has all other cache types ... I assume this omission was an oversight. I mean, you can create a PQ for Project A.P.E. caches but not for puzzles? C'mon ;-)

 

I noticed this the other day and was kinda annoyed by it, since I was searching *for* mystery/puzzle caches!

 

-eP

Edited January 11, 2007 by ePeterso2

[+eigengott]

the Pocket Query editing form is missing a checkbox for "Mystery/Puzzle" caches

 

You find them under the cache type "Unknown cache".

[+ePeterso2]

the Pocket Query editing form is missing a checkbox for "Mystery/Puzzle" caches

 

You find them under the cache type "Unknown cache".

Well, that's just ... nonintuitive.

[+flask]

 

The cache owner was too lazy to design the task or puzzle so that it gives you the location of the cache, preferring to set a task to be completed AFTER the find and threatening reprisals should you not comply. But the cache is at the coordinates, and there's nothing to stop you logging it.

 

 

well, actually there IS somthing to prevent you logging it; the cache owner can simply delete your log.

 

i have been to a few caches with additional logging requirements. on of my favorites is one for which the cache owner requires you to use a certain phrase in your log. it would be unfair to categorize him as lazy; in order for him to set it up he had to write all the given phrases on the pages of the logbook, which he then perforated so you could take your phrase with you.

 

the cache is grand fun and we have all had a good time seeing what everyone comes up with.

[Clan Riffster]

As with MudFrog, I'm not a big fan of caches that require an E-mail. I will generally pass on these, unless there is something about the write up that perks my ears up. I'm one of those guys that religiously reads every cache page prior to going into search mode. If I see an ALR that I disagree with for some reason, I'll pass on that one. It would feel rude to me to log an ALR without performing the ALR. Oddly enough, I have 3 ALR caches of my own;

A Letter From Bjorn asks that you log using Swedish chef lingo.

Proliferation asks that you trade swag for a camo'ed decon kit, and hide it somewhere.

(not sure if these would qualify as ALR's since they are requests)

"To Hint or Not To Hint" requires a signature in the logbook to claim a find. This one would definitely qualify as an ALR since there are no specific rules requiring you to sign a log to gain credit for a find.

 

To date, I have not deleted any logs, nor do I intend to do so, unless the log in question violates Groundspeak's TOS.

[+sbell111]

... Oddly enough, I have 3 ALR caches of my own;

A Letter From Bjorn asks that you log using Swedish chef lingo....

That one sounds like big fun. My wife and I tend to go to Canaveral National Seashore and Blackpoint a couple times a year. I'm going to try for a side trip the next time we are in the area to log it.

[Mushtang]

...Oddly enough, I have 3 ALR caches of my own....

...To date, I have not deleted any logs, nor do I intend to do so...

These do not sound like ALR to me since the additional action is not required.

 

These are caches that you suggest optional behavior, but since you're not enforcing them with the threat of log deletion I don't think the people that object to ALR caches would want to avoid these.

 

edit to add that I too would enjoy the Letter From Bjorn cache. It sounds like fun, and I'd probably try to log my find without using the translator, it would be fun to try and "swede" up my own text.

Edited January 12, 2007 by Mushtang

[+Happy Humphrey]

well, actually there IS somthing to prevent you logging it; the cache owner can simply delete your log.

No, you can still log the cache: both at the site and on-line. But there is (in some cases) a threat that your on-line "find" stats and list of logged caches will be sabotaged if you don't comply.

i have been to a few caches with additional logging requirements. on of my favorites is one for which the cache owner requires you to use a certain phrase in your log. it would be unfair to categorize him as lazy; in order for him to set it up he had to write all the given phrases on the pages of the logbook, which he then perforated so you could take your phrase with you.

 

the cache is grand fun and we have all had a good time seeing what everyone comes up with.

 

I agree with Mushtang that where the after-find actions are an invitation rather than a requirement, the cache is not an ALR cache. I've also logged one where you have to use a "certain phrase". As long as it's an informal, fun, unenforced action then I'm happy to comply. But I'd prefer that the cache owner came up with a clever trick where you need the phrase to find the cache (I can't think of a way of doing this: I'm feeling too lazy at the moment)...

[+sbell111]

well, actually there IS somthing to prevent you logging it; the cache owner can simply delete your log.

No, you can still log the cache: both at the site and on-line. But there is (in some cases) a threat that your on-line "find" stats and list of logged caches will be sabotaged if you don't comply.

Why would you want to even attempt the cache if you were not going to comply with the cache owner's requirement? It seems like you would just put it on your ignore list and move on with your life.

[Clan Riffster]

it would be fun to try and "swede" up my own text.

Bork Bork!

 

Back on topic: I should've clarified. If an ALR attribute existed, it might show up on the first two "Suggested Activity" caches, and would certainly show up on the "Required Activity". These three would get filtered out of PQ's created by folks who dislike ALR's. Just because I don't enforce my own cache rules, doesn't necessarily change them from being ALR's.... or do they? Heck, now you got me scratching my own head. Since two have suggested activities, and the third has a blatant, (although unenforced), logging requirement, should these three be branded with the mythical ALR attribute?

[+Happy Humphrey]

Why would you want to even attempt the cache if you were not going to comply with the cache owner's requirement? It seems like you would just put it on your ignore list and move on with your life.

Yes, if you'd realised before too late - hence the request for an attribute to make sure you don't find one of these and then have it "unfound" on you!

[+sbell111]

Why would you want to even attempt the cache if you were not going to comply with the cache owner's requirement? It seems like you would just put it on your ignore list and move on with your life.

Yes, if you'd realised before too late - hence the request for an attribute to make sure you don't find one of these and then have it "unfound" on you!

I agree with you that there should be a requirement. However, just because there isn't doesn't mean that a person should log the cache without doing the ALR or be surprised if <plunk> his log is deleted.

[+Happy Humphrey]

Why would you want to even attempt the cache if you were not going to comply with the cache owner's requirement? It seems like you would just put it on your ignore list and move on with your life.

Yes, if you'd realised before too late - hence the request for an attribute to make sure you don't find one of these and then have it "unfound" on you!

I agree with you that there should be a requirement. However, just because there isn't doesn't mean that a person should log the cache without doing the ALR or be surprised if <plunk> his log is deleted.

As long as the cache log book makes it clear that you haven't found it until you've completed the ALR, then fair enough I suppose...although it seems rather artificial and lame that you're standing there signing a log book that you perhaps ultimately don't "find"! Perhaps the cache owner should make it clear that you have to return to the cache, as you shouldn't sign the book until after completing the ALR.

 

Just to clarify, some of my caching trips are on foot and are primarily for hiking. If I have time, I'll find caches along the route as long as they are fairly easy, close to the path and are not multicaches or mystery caches. Similarly for some road trips. It may be a few days later that they get logged on gc.com: generally at the cache site I'll just note what I left and took. I may have noticed the ALR, but perhaps not if there are a lot of caches on the list.

[+sbell111]

Why would you want to even attempt the cache if you were not going to comply with the cache owner's requirement? It seems like you would just put it on your ignore list and move on with your life.

Yes, if you'd realised before too late - hence the request for an attribute to make sure you don't find one of these and then have it "unfound" on you!

I agree with you that there should be a requirement. However, just because there isn't doesn't mean that a person should log the cache without doing the ALR or be surprised if <plunk> his log is deleted.

As long as the cache log book makes it clear that you haven't found it until you've completed the ALR, then fair enough I suppose...

Except for liar's caches which have the requirement spelled out in the log book and generally have a bit ov verbiage in the description that states that the requirement in the log must be followed, the requirement is on the cache page, not in the log.